NOTICESOpportunity to Co-Sponsor Office for Human Research Protections Educational Workshops, 44027-440282016-16007Opportunity to Co-Sponsor Office for Human Research Protections Research Community Forums, 44028-440302016-16004HomelandHomeland Security DepartmentSee

The Rural Housing Service (RHS) is amending regulations on Community Facility Direct Loans to enable the Agency to make loans to eligible lenders who would then in turn re-loan those funds to applicants for projects that are eligible under the Community Facilities Direct Loan program.

DATES:

Effective date: This interim rule is effective July 6, 2016.

Comments due date: Written comments on this rule must be received on or before September 6, 2016. The comment period for information collections under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 continues through September 6, 2016.

This rulemaking adds provisions to the Community Facility (CF) Direct Loan program that allow the Agency to make direct loans to eligible lending institutions (referred to as “re-lenders”) who then will re-loan the funds to eligible applicants for eligible community facility projects. The rulemaking identifies the types of lending institutions that are eligible to become re-lenders as described in an annual Notice that the Agency will publish in the Federal Register to exercise this authority. The annual Notice will set out application procedures in more detail to supplement the regulation requirements. All applicants and projects must meet the eligibility requirements found at 7 CFR part 1942, subpart A or any successor regulation.

Re-lenders are responsible for all loan origination and servicing. Re-lenders must obtain Agency approval of applicant and project eligibility. The Agency will obligate aggregated funds to each approved eligible re-lender, but will disburse funds to such re-lenders for eligible projects on a project-by-project basis after making limited eligibility reviews. The re-lender is responsible for providing the Agency with status and servicing reports on each re-loan according to its Re-lender Agreement with the Agency. The Agency will use the information to monitor portfolio performance on the re-loans and to assess the risk to the Agency on the re-lender's portfolio of re-loans.

Because this rule concerns a loan program, it is not subject to the requirements of notice and comment rulemaking pursuant to 5 U.S.C 552(a)(2); however, the Agency is very interested in receiving comments regarding the re-lender activities authorized under this rule and their impacts on the ability of the Agency to make CF direct loan funds available, especially in areas of economic development need. Therefore, this rule is being promulgated as an interim rule to provide interested parties and the public with the opportunity to provide comments to the rule before it becomes final.

The rule will be effective immediately. The 30 day effective date policy is exempt for “good cause.” USDA has determined, consistent with the APA that making these funds available through re-lenders is necessary to provide CF funding to the hardest to reach and most needy areas this fiscal year. The Agency intends to test the new program this year with available funds and implement a final rule based on its findings.

The Agency is soliciting comments on this interim rule and will consider them in the final rule. The Agency is particularly interested in whether the public believes the re-lender structure is the best way to reach more persistent and high poverty areas or whether there are alternate proposals.

B. Costs and Benefits

The action is not expected to result in significant costs to the public. Generally speaking, the re-lenders will have a proven track record of successful lending for community infrastructure development in high poverty communities. Additionally, the Agency will continue to perform its due diligence in reviewing and determining applicant and project eligibility for each loan made by the re-lender. Therefore, loans will be made only to strong, viable, mission driven lending institutions for CF eligible projects. These risk mitigation strategies should provide protection to the mission and portfolio of the CF Direct Loan program.

The costs associated with these new provisions will be incurred mainly by the lending institutions who participate in the re-lending of CF direct loans. Re-lenders will incur costs associated with the application process as well as originating, processing, and servicing loans to applicants. Re-lenders will also incur costs associated with reporting to USDA. Applicants will work directly with re-lenders for processing and servicing loans. Applicants may incur additional upfront costs working with a re-lender versus obtaining a loan directly from the Agency. However, the applicant will likely obtain other benefits working with a re-lender that may offset these costs in the long-term. The end result will be a more financially viable project providing an essential community facility or service to the community for years to come.

With the re-lending provision it is expected that re-lenders will leverage these Federal funds with other private and philanthropic funding so that applicants do not incur additional costs. By obtaining private sector support in the form of grants or guarantees, a community re-lender could reduce the cost of structuring the transaction, providing technical assistance to the borrowers, and servicing the loan.

In addition, there may be instances where the applicant incurs higher financing costs. In instances where the borrower receives higher financing costs than he/she would have received through a direct loan, the Agency believes that those costs may be outweighed by other benefits such as the ability to receive funding more quickly and the projects may be able to receive additional technical assistance. There may also be instances where a re-lender could use private grants to offer a lower interest rate to the applicant. For example, if the community lender obtained a grant of $1 million paired with a loan from the CF program of $10 million, the grant could cover not only the re-lenders cost of doing business but subsidize the interest rate to the ultimate recipient even below the CF program market rate. The Agency is not able to estimate how often this would occur though, if at all.

Most importantly, this provision provides re-lenders with capital that they currently lack thereby enhancing their lending capacity so that they can make loans to applicants that otherwise may go unserved, especially in places with high or persistent poverty.

Ultimately, the benefit of the new provision is expected to be an increase in the number of projects that receive funds under the CF Direct Loan program, especially in communities that have historically been economically underserved. There are three factors that work together to achieve this goal: (1) Working with mission driven re-lenders, who already work in the targeted high poverty communities, to deploy CF loan funds in those places, (2) providing those re-lenders with additional capital so they can increase their capacity to make investments in community infrastructure projects, and (3) re-lenders can leverage the CF funds they receive with other private and philanthropic sources of funds in order to provide the right mix of affordable credit with the necessary technical assistance.

First, the re-lenders have proven track records of mission driven lending in high poverty places. The aim of these institutions is to pull together capital to meet a range of community needs as such they typically combine financial return with a social return. Further, the history of working in the community and longstanding relationships means they have the ability to tap different resources and expertise, have boots on the ground and are already visible and working in these areas we want to reach. The existing relationships between re-lenders and community leaders would facilitate and expedite project development that is supported by the community-at-large, resulting in the applicant benefitting from the improved service/facility sooner than under traditional CF lending. Also because of the longstanding work in the community the re-lenders traditionally have technical resources/complimentary programs available to assist applicants. Examples: assist a local nonprofit write a business plan for a daycare facility; assist a local nonprofit with a capital campaign; assist a local community with a strategic plan. Each of these ancillary services will likely result in a project that the re-lender can assist with. By relying on this network of re-lenders, the Agency will not only increase the number of projects funded through the CF Direct Loan program overall it will also increase the number of projects funded in high poverty and persistently poor communities.

Second, re-lenders often lack capital to support all of the much needed community infrastructure projects in the communities they serve. This change will enable a system of lenders who will originate, structure, underwrite, and finance sustainable rural community infrastructure projects. By providing these lenders with additional capital they will be able to grow, achieve organizational capacity, and fund more projects that will improve access to health care, education and other critical services, which will help ensure that rural communities are strong, viable and economically well off.

Lastly, this provision will encourage greater leveraging of private and philanthropic investments in rural community infrastructure. The re-lenders have established relationships with other private and philanthropic funders. Thus the addition of CF funds could unlock additional capital to support community infrastructure development such as grant funding, as previously mentioned, to CF re-lenders. These grant dollars will give community lenders more flexibility and strength as they borrow from the USDA. This will help the re-lenders:

• Develop critically needed community facilities in America's most persistently poor rural communities that would not otherwise be feasible.

• Strengthen community lenders with deep and lasting ties to the local market so they can be enduring resources in economically distressed areas.

• Take advantage of community re-lenders' development expertise and knowledge of the local markets to identify the best community facilities investments.

If the Agency does not make this change the CF Direct Loan program will continue operating as it currently does. In FY15, CF invested 70% of its direct loan funds in facilities that serve high poverty areas. However, there are still some rural places with high poverty areas and persistent poverty counties that remain underserved. These communities need technical and financial support in order to develop an infrastructure project and secure adequate and affordable financing and ensure facilities are built and essential services are provided to some of the most vulnerable rural populations. This change seeks to partner with re-lenders who are positioned to provide the technical assistance to help these communities develop and fund community infrastructure projects.

To better understand the nature of persistent poverty and to help the USDA determine the way to reach those areas, Rural Development (RD) worked with a partner through a cooperative agreement, to learn more about persistent poverty and increasing the impact of RD dollars in these areas. Efforts included holding focus groups with key stakeholders in persistent poverty counties and high poverty areas, and analyzing data. In total, five (5) focus groups were convened with numerous national and regional players in the community development organizations (CDOs) field. The purpose was to understand the needs that exist in areas of persistent poverty, what programs are successfully addressing these challenges, and how these stakeholders think RD could increase its impact and build on effective approaches. Four of the focus groups were held in the regions of concentrated persistent poverty including Appalachia, the Colonias, the Mississippi Delta, and in Indian Country, and one was held with RD officials.

In addition to the focus groups, a listening session with key national players or CDOs was held in Washington, DC on November 30, 2015 as well as various individual conversations were also held with other high-performing CDOs and regional Federal Reserve Banks to gain their perspectives as well. Several common themes emerged from the regional focus groups. These themes included challenges persistent poverty regions encounter and common solutions that have demonstrated success in these regions, which include:

Common Challenges:

• Limited access to mainstream financial products and services—Residents of all regions are often turned down for checking and savings accounts, or are found ineligible for loans or are extended loan instruments with unfavorable terms.

• Banking Deserts—They often have few if any traditional banking entities in or near their communities.

• Insufficient Private Investment and Lack of Reinvestment—The financial institutions that do exist in these communities are often hesitant to extend services to low-income clients, and there is a perception that much of the local money that is held at these banks is reinvested elsewhere.

• Mission-Driven Banking and the Need for Scale—Credit unions and other non-traditional financing entities fill the gap created by inadequate private investment, but these entities need more equity and human capital to have more expansive impact.

• Scattered Geographies and Expensive Services—These regions are largely rural, and residences and services can be a great distance from one another. The further communities are from utilities and other technologies, the more costly they are, if they are available at all.

• Social Distress—Substance abuse and fragmented families are not uncommon in these communities. People also need help envisioning a positive future.

• Outmigration—Many of the most highly educated residents have a tendency to move away for better job opportunities.

• Poor Quality Education—It was universally agreed that the school systems in these communities are not preparing students for a productive future.

• Infrastructure—These regions have sub-standard roads and require much-needed infrastructure improvements ranging from water systems to broadband to make them more competitive.

Common Solutions:

• Value of Nonprofits—Areas of persistent poverty rely heavily on nonprofits and other mission-driven institutions to meet their social and economic needs (capital access, loan packaging services, etc.), but these organizations need more financial and human capacity.

• Multi-Sectoral Partnerships—Everyone agreed that strategically partnering with a variety of different organizations with similar overall missions is always valuable. It builds capacity, and leverages different skill sets and resources for greater impact.

• Streamlining—When it comes to implementing a program, applying for funding, or assisting residents, finding ways to simplify the process as much as possible increases efficiency and effectiveness.

• Strategic Planning—Programs are more likely to get funded and be successful in the long-term if the groundwork is carefully laid before building partnerships and seeking funding.

• Employing Locals—All regions were supportive of finding ways to incentivize businesses to hire locally for community and infrastructure projects or business relocations and expansions.

In persistent poverty communities such as Appalachia, the Colonias, the Mississippi Delta, and in Indian Country, there is a rich and successful history of community development. Poverty produces a multitude of social and economic stressors that compromise the growth and health of affected communities and their residents, particularly those saddled with high levels of disinvestment over prolonged periods of time.

The USDA's Economic Research Service (ERS) has classified 353 counties in the U.S. as `persistently poor.' These chronically impoverished communities have sustained poverty rates above 20 percent for more than 30 years, and account for approximately 11 percent of all counties nationwide. While dispersed across the U.S., these communities are largely rural and concentrated in Central Appalachia, the Deep South (largely in the Mississippi Delta), the Texas-Mexico border (Colonias), and American-Indian reservations. The social and economic challenges that have handicapped progress in these communities have a number of dimensions.

High-impact CDOs, distinct from banks, investment funds, and other economic development organizations, have a demonstrated track record of implementing the kinds of creative and time-intensive activities that are necessary to create jobs, provide affordable housing, build necessary infrastructure, and strengthen the financial security of millions of lower-income Americans. The focus groups revealed that the problems faced by these communities are complex and multi-layered. Essential community facilities provide high poverty areas with critical services through hospitals, schools, community centers, and fire and police stations. It is not uncommon for distressed areas to be some distance away from the nearest high quality grocery store or health care facility, or for school buildings to be in need of updating. Building hospitals, rehabilitating educational institutions, or providing space for other core social and human services can enhance the quality and quantity of services needed to address the social and economic strains faced by these counties.

This rulemaking adds provisions to the CF Direct Loan program that allows the Agency to make direct loans to re-lenders who then re-loan the funds to eligible applicants for eligible projects. The action will not change the underlying provisions of the included programs (e.g., eligibility, applications, award decisions, scoring, and servicing provisions). The primary benefit associated with the new provisions is expected to be an increase in the number of projects that receive funds under the CF Direct Loan program, especially in persistent poverty counties and high poverty areas in rural America. The costs are minimal. Ultimately, this approach provides an innovative public private partnership that will enable the Federal government to more effectively serve its rural constituents and stakeholders and bolster rural community viability.

II. Discussion of Interim Rule

The following paragraphs discuss each change being made to the CF Direct Loan program regulations.

A. General (§ 1942.1)

The Agency is modifying this section by including language in paragraph (a) of the section indicating that 7 CFR part 1942, subpart A, contains policies and procedures that allow the Agency to make CF direct loans to approved eligible re-lenders who then in turn re-lend those funds to eligible applicants for eligible projects. The Agency is also re-paragraphing § 1942.1(a) for clarity.

B. Re-Lending (§ 1942.30)

This new section contains the basic policies and procedures associated with the Agency making loans to re-lenders (i.e., those eligible lenders to whom the Agency will make direct loans for purposes of re-lending those funds to eligible applicants for eligible projects). Under these provisions, re-lenders will be responsible for all loan origination and servicing of re-lender loans, and for repaying its loan to the Agency even if the ultimate borrower(s) does not repay the re-lender. The Agency will obligate aggregated funds to approved eligible re-lenders for the purpose of making CF loans, but will disburse loan funds to these re-lenders only on a project-by-project basis. This structure will ensure that only eligible applicants and projects will receive Federal dollars and allow re-lenders to lock in low interest rates and reduce their interest costs with Agency loan disbursements over 5 years.

1. Re-lender eligibility (paragraph a). This paragraph identifies the conditions under which a lender would be eligible to be a re-lender for CF direct loans. Re-lenders eligible for these loans must possess the legal authority necessary to make and service loans involving community infrastructure and development similar to the type of projects listed in 7 CFR 1942.17(d); meet federal, state and local requirements in accordance with 7 CFR 1942.17(k); have a history of making loans to community infrastructure projects located in or serving persistent poverty counties or high poverty areas; provide adequate collateral; provide a Letter of Intent; provide an irrevocable letter of credit (or performance guarantee) acceptable to the Agency, prior to receiving loan disbursements; demonstrate that they are regulated and supervised by a Federal or State Banking regulatory agency that is subject to credit examination or demonstrate they meet outlined standards for required financial strength, be a legal non-governmental entity at the time of application (with the exception of Tribal government entities); be a member of a national organization that provides training, technical assistance and credit evaluation of member organizations, agree to loan a majority of funds to applicants whose projects are located in or serve Persistent Poverty County(ies) and High Poverty Area(s); and meet any other criteria specified by the Agency in a Notice published in the Federal Register.

2. Applicant and project eligibility (paragraph b). The purpose of this paragraph is to identify the types of applicants and the types of projects eligible to receive a CF direct loan through an eligible re-lender. In brief, both the applicant and the project must meet the eligibility requirements currently associated with receiving a CF direct loan directly from the Agency.

3. Application submission requirements (paragraph c) This paragraph outlines that in order to apply for funds under this section, a Re-lender must timely submit all items as specified in the annual Federal Register notice.

4. Evaluation criteria (paragraph d).

This paragraph outlines that an Agency will score and rank all eligible and complete Re-lender applications based upon the evaluation factors set out in the annual Federal Register which will include, but not be limited to: Lending experience and strength of the re-lender, poverty and project service area, and Administrator's discretionary points.

5. Other Re-lender requirements (paragraph e). This paragraph specifies that, prior to receiving a direct loan from the Agency, the re-lender must enter into a Re-lender's agreement in accordance with the applicable Federal Register notice, execute a promissory note, provide an irrevocable letter of credit (or performance guarantee) acceptable to the Agency, provide adequate security, and meet any other loan conditions outlined in the annual Federal Register notice.

4. Loan origination and servicing (paragraph f). This paragraph identifies the basic responsibilities of both the re-lender and the Agency for re-lending loans.

a. Re-lenders. The re-lender is responsible for all underwriting (loan origination) and loan servicing of each loan it makes under the re-lending provisions. For each loan a re-lender makes under the re-lending provisions, the Agency expects that each re-lender generally will use its own policies and procedures for loan origination and servicing for all loans it makes.

With regard to loan origination, however, the re-lender is responsible for presenting to the Agency each eligible CF direct loan application and any other documentation to demonstrate that both the applicant and the project meet the eligibility requirements of the CF direct loan regulation. If necessary, the Agency may request the re-lender to submit additional information about the applicant or the project. The Agency may identify in the applicable annual Notice published in the Federal Register, any additional specific information and documentation to be provided by the re-lender.

After the loan to the re-lender is made, the re-lender must submit reports to the Agency after any loan disbursement as specified in the annual Federal Register notice, certify that the applicant has met all planning, bidding, contracting and construction requirements as specified in the annual Federal Register notice, comply with agency requirements concerning NEPA, Civil Rights laws and other applicable Federal, state, and local law, and obtain disbursement of loan funds within 5 years.

b. Agency. The basic responsibilities of the Agency are spelled out and cover four basic areas:

i. Re-lender Eligibility. The Agency will evaluate the eligibility of the re-lender based on documentation submitted to meet the criteria outlined in the annual Federal Register Notice.

ii. Applicant Eligibility. Re-lenders will submit to the Agency for Agency review and approval only those applications that the re-lender has determined meet the applicant and project eligibility requirements of 7 CFR part 1942, subpart A and any additional requirements that may be outlined in an annual Notice published in the Federal Register. For each CF direct loan application presented by the re-lenders, the Agency will evaluate all information provided by the re-lender to confirm the eligibility of both the applicant and the project. Once the Agency concludes its evaluation, the Agency will notify the re-lender of its determination. Applicants and re-lenders have administrative appeal or review rights for Agency decisions made under this subpart. Programmatic decisions based on clear and objective statutory or regulatory requirements are not appealable; however, such decisions are reviewable for appealability by the National Appeals Division (NAD). The applicant and re-lender may appeal any Agency decision that directly and adversely impacts them. For an adverse decision that impacts the applicant, the re-lender and applicant must jointly execute a written request for appeal for an alleged adverse decision made by the Agency. An adverse decision that only impacts the re-lender may be appealed by the re-lender only. A decision by a re-lender adverse to the interest of the borrower or applicant is not a decision by the Agency, whether or not concurred in by the Agency. Appeals will be conducted by USDA NAD and will be handled in accordance with 7 CFR part 11.

ii. Funding. For each re-lender the Agency determines to be eligible, the Agency will obligate aggregated funds based on the re-lender's application for funds and in compliance with additional criteria, if any, published in the annual Federal Register Notice. For each applicant/project that the Agency determines eligible, the Agency will disburse from the re-lender's aggregated loan funds the appropriate amount of funds to that re-lender for the approved project. The Agency will require adequate security and compliance with all applicable National Environmental Policy Act provisions prior to making any re-lender loan and disbursing any loan funds.

The Agency will specify any terms and conditions associated with each loan from the Agency to a re-lender in the Re-lender's Agreement.

iii. Monitoring. The Agency expects each re-lender to service each loan it makes under these provisions as it would any other loan it makes. Nevertheless, the Agency will require the re-lender to submit reports, as will be specified in the Re-lender's agreement that enable the Agency to evaluate the status of the loans made under these re-lending provisions. The Agency may suspend further disbursements and pursue any other available and appropriate remedies, if any of the ultimate loans become troubled, delinquent or otherwise in default status.

III. Regulatory InformationExecutive Order 12866—Classification

This interim rule has been reviewed under Executive Order (EO) 12866 and has been determined significant by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) designated this rule as significant under Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, OMB has reviewed this interim rule.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

The affected programs are listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program under 10.766, Community Facilities Loans and Grants.

Executive Order 12372—Intergovernmental Review

This program is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. The re-lender conducts intergovernmental consultations on behalf of the Agency for individual loans to borrowers in the manner delineated in 2 CFR part 415, subpart C and at RD Instruction 1970 Subpart I—Intergovernmental Review. Note that not all States have chosen to participate in the intergovernmental review process. A list of participating States is available at the following Web site: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants/spoc.html.

Executive Order 13175—Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” Executive Order (EO) 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

The Agency has assessed the impact of this rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rule does not, to our knowledge, have tribal implications that require tribal consultation under EO 13175. If a Tribe requests consultation, the Agency will work with the USDA's Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided where changes, additions and modifications identified herein are not expressly mandated by Congress.

Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice Reform

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. In accordance with this rule: (1) All State and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with this rule will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this rule; and (3) administrative proceedings of the National Appeals Division (7 CFR part 11) must be exhausted before bringing suit in court challenging action taken under this rule unless those regulations specifically allow bringing suit at an earlier time.

Environmental Impact Statement

The document has been reviewed in accordance with 7 CFR part 1970, “Environmental Policies and Procedures.” The Agency has determined that this action does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., an Environmental Impact Statement is not required. Individual loans will be subject to 7 CFR part 1970 for NEPA compliance.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995) for State, local, and Tribal governments or the private sector. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule whenever an agency is required by the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) or any other law to publish a proposed rule, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. None of the borrowers under the Community Facility Loan program are small businesses. Thus, this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small businesses.

Executive Order 13132—Federalism

The policies contained in this rule do not have any substantial direct effect on states, on the relationship between the National Government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor does this rule impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments. Therefore, consultation with states is not required.

E-Government Act Compliance

The Agency is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Agency is now seeking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval of the reporting and recordkeeping requirements contained in this rule. With the permission of OMB, the Agency will be temporarily using these forms and recordkeeping requirements while seeking comments on the information collection.

Title: Community Facility Loans.

OMB Number: 0575—new.

Type of Request: New collection.

Abstract: This is a new information collection. This information is vital to the Agency to make wise decisions regarding the eligibility of certain qualified lenders to be “re-lenders” under the Community Facility Loan program to ensure that funds obtained from the Government are used appropriately. This collection of information is necessary in order to implement the re-lender provisions of the modified Community Facility Loan program.

The following estimates are based on the average over the first three years the re-lender provisions are in place.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 67 hours per response. This submission is for 20 respondents with 790 responses and 1,462 burden hours. Rural Development estimates 20 re-lender applications, 10 re-lenders approved for funding and 50 applicant loans among the 10 re-lenders on an annual basis. The estimated number of total man-hours on an annual basis is 1,462 for a total cost of $121,346 ($83 × 1,462). The cost of the regulations as a burden to the public was computed on the basis of $83.00 per hour. This is the wage class most comparable to what eligible nonprofit employee compensation would be to process the information requested. This is the same wage class used in the Intermediary Relending Program which has a similar type of re-lender (0570-0021 dated February 2016).

Respondents: Lending institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 20.

Estimated Number of Responses: 790.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 1,462.

Rural Development is amending its CF Direct Loan regulation to enable the Agency to make loans to qualified re-lenders. Information collected from the re-lender is necessary to determine re-lender eligibility which includes legal authority, compliance with federal, state, and local requirements, experience, and financial strength. Upon OMB approval, this collection package and burden will be merged into the existing Community Facility Loans burden package—OMB No. 0575-0015.

The information will be collected by the RD national office and field offices from re-lenders. This information is used to determine re-lender eligibility to participate in the Community Facilities program, to document that re-lenders have adequate security to protect the financial interest of the Government and to provide on-going reporting data to ascertain re-lenders operate on a sound basis including adhering to civil rights requirements.

To participate in the CF re-lender provision, re-lenders must make application to RD, provide financial information, certifications and other documentation to support their eligibility and priority to receive funding. Documents or documentation in this category include the following:

Reporting Requirements—Non Forms:

• Documentation of Legal Powers: Only re-lenders with legal authority to make and service loans involving community infrastructure and development will be eligible. Documentation may come in the form of a legal opinion or a copy of the re-lenders organizational documents.

• Certification of compliance with federal, state and local requirements: Re-lenders responsible for administering a loan fund need to understand and be in compliance with laws impacting their operations and the operations of the clients they serve. Examples include local building requirements, state laws regarding certificates of need for health care facilities, Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and environmental compliance.

• Documentation of Serving Persistent Poverty County(ies) or High Poverty Areas: Re-lenders are required to provide documentation of their current portfolio or experience providing loans in Persistent Poverty County(ies) or High Poverty Area(s) to determine eligibility and priority. This documentation is also used in the evaluation factors and does not need to be duplicated.

• Documentation from a Financial Institution that an Irrevocable Letter of Credit (or a performance guarantee) acceptable to the Agency will be issued if re-lender is approved for funding: Re-lenders will provide this documentation at the time of application for eligibility. The purpose of this documentation (also referred to as a “Letter of Intent”) is to insure Rural Development that the re-lender is creditworthy for the amount of financial assistance requested.

• Documentation Regulated and Supervised by a Federal or State Banking Regulatory Agency, Subject to Credit Examination, Not on a Watch List, and No Regulatory Actions Outstanding: We estimate approximately 45% of re-lenders will provide this documentation for eligibility. The documentation insures Rural Development that the re-lender has the requisite capital, asset quality, management, earnings, liquidity, and sensitivity to market risk to operate a federally financed loan fund.

• Documentation of strong Financial Strength and Performance rating: We estimate approximately 20% of re-lenders will provide this documentation for eligibility. The assessment, conducted by an independent third party, evaluates overall creditworthiness based on an analysis of past financial performance, current financial strength, and apparent risk factors. The documentation insures Rural Development that the re-lender has the requisite capital, asset quality, management, earnings, liquidity, and sensitivity to market risk to operate a federally financed loan fund.

• Documentation of being a financially sound institution: We estimate approximately 35% of re-lenders will need to undergo an assessment by Rural Development to assess their capital adequacy, adequate liquidity, management capabilities, repayment ability, credit worthiness, balance sheet equity & other financial factors. To conduct the assessment, Rural Development requires the following documentation:

A. 3 years audited financial statements.

B. Interim financial statements as of most recent quarter end.

C. Auditor's most recent management letter and management's response.

D. Operating Budget versus Actual for last completed fiscal year and most recent quarter-end.

CC. Description of programs, financial and non-financial products and services.

• Documentation of Legal, Non-governmental Status (except for Tribal governments): Only non-governmental organizations (except for Tribal governments) will be eligible to participate as a re-lender. Documentation may come in the form of a legal opinion or a copy of the re-lenders organizational documents. This documentation is also used to determine legal powers and does not need to be duplicated.

• Documentation of Membership in a National Organization that provides training, technical assistance and credit evaluation or certified by a Government agency as having a primary mission of promoting development in low-income target markets and performs training and technical assistance as part of that mission: This documentation is used to determine re-lender eligibility. The purpose of the information is to provide Rural Development with assurances of the re-lender's basic credentials and professional standing in their industry and that their mission is aligned with the goals of the re-lending provision.

• Certification to loan a majority of funds to applicants whose projects are located in or serve Persistent Poverty County(ies) or High Poverty Area(s): This certification for eligibility will provide to Rural Development the re-lender's commitment to providing economic benefit in areas of greatest need in rural America. Rural Development will review the re-lender's loan disbursements to determine that this eligibility criteria is met.

• RD Instruction 1970-A, Exhibit H, “Multi-tier Action Environmental Compliance Agreement”: This agreement is signed by the re-lender (primary recipient of the loan funds) before Rural Development moves forward with obligation of the initial aggregated funds. The agreement stipulates the re-lender's environmental compliance requirements for applicant loans.

• Documentation of Assistance Provided to Rural Development Employees (written): Re-lenders must identify and report any known relationship or association with an RD employee such as close personal association, immediate family, close relatives, or business associates. This includes any assistance provided to employees.

• Documentation of each evaluation factor (written): Re-lender applications will be prioritized for funding based on years of loan fund experience, lending history in Persistent Poverty County(ies) or Poverty Areas, and discretionary points for geographic distribution, emergency conditions, and natural disasters.

• Workers Compensation Insurance, if applicable: This form of insurance is normal in any organization and Rural Development requires it to be available at the time of application. However, insurance requirements will not normally exceed those proposed by the re-lender.

• Irrevocable Letter of Credit: This document (or a performance guarantee) acceptable to the Agency serves as security for the loan between the re-lender and Rural Development and will be required by all re-lenders prior to loan disbursement. This document is issued by a financial institution.

• Loan Origination and Servicing—applicant eligibility: Applicants will apply directly to re-lenders for financial assistance. Re-lenders will be responsible for insuring applicants and the applicant's projects are eligible under 7 CFR 1942 Subpart A, Community Facilities Loan program and underwriting the loans for financial feasibility. Applicants applying to re-lenders will meet the same application requirements as applicant's applying to Rural Development including all environmental review requirements of 7 CFR 1970. No additional burden by Rural Development will be placed on the applicant. Re-lenders will pass through to Rural Development certain applicant documents to obtain Rural Development concurrence in applicant eligibility, project eligibility and eligible rural area.

• Loan Origination and Servicing—reporting: Rural Development will monitor the re-lender's portfolio on a quarterly and annual basis to insure the re-lender remains a financially sound institution in compliance with its Re-lender's Agreement.

Reporting Requirements—Forms:

• RD 1942-46, “Letter of Intent to Meet Conditions” (OMB Control No. 0575-0015: The re-lender completes this form to indicate the intent to meet the conditions of the loan closing(s). This information is necessary for Rural Development to continue further processing of the loan application.

• RD 1942-55 “Re-lender's Agreement”: This agreement is necessary to insure the re-lender is informed about its responsibilities and agrees to comply. The agreement covers among other things the following information: loan terms; disbursement procedures; responsibilities related to compliance with 7 CFR 1942, Subpart A with respect to eligible applicants and projects, Civil Rights, environmental, security, planning, bidding, contracting, construction and servicing; collateral, insurance and reporting requirements; and default provisions.

• RD 1942-56, “Promissory Note”: This document is executed by the re-lender as evidence of its indebtedness to Rural Development.

• RD 1942-57, “Loan Resolution Security Agreement”: This document is executed by the re-lender to attest to its legal authority as an organization to enter into the specific loan transaction, and provides for the pledging of certain assets to secure Rural Development's loan to the re-lender.

• RD 440-11, “Estimate of Funds needed for 30-day Period Commencing” (OMB Control No. 0575-0015): This form is a request used by the re-lender to indicate the amount of funds required for a 30-day period. It is concurred in by Rural Development as to the reasonableness of the amount.

• RD 440-24, Position Fidelity Schedule Bond Declarations of other evidence of coverage (OMB Control No. 0575-0015: This form may be used by organizations (where permitted by state law) to provide fidelity bond coverage for certain officials entrusted with funds. It is required at application and thereafter annually as a reporting requirement.

• RD 442-7, “Operating Budget” (OMB Control No. 0575-0015): The form is used by the re-lender to project income and expense items and a complete cash flow through the first full year of the loan proceeds. These projections are necessary in determining the source and reliability of the projected income and the adequacy of resources to repay the loan in a timely manner.

• RD 400-1, “Equal Opportunity Agreement” (OMB Control No. 0575-0018): The form is completed by the re-lender when construction work is subject to the provisions of the Civil Rights compliance requirements that contractors cannot discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

• RD 400-4, “Assurance Agreement” (OMB Control No. 0575-0018): The form is completed by the re-lender and used to confirm that recipients of Rural Development loans have been reminded of their obligation to comply with all provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and regulations of Rural Development.

• AD-1047, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension & Other Responsibility Matters—Primary Covered Transactions (OMB Control No. 0505-0027): USDA regulations published at 2 CFR parts 180 and 417 implement the government-wide debarment and suspension system for USDA's non procurement transactions. Applicants and re-lenders are required to provide certification under these regulations. Form AD-1047 may be used to obtain the required certification.

• SF 424, “Application for Federal Assistance” (OMB Control No. 4040-0004): Re-lenders use this form to apply under the re-lending provision. This is a common form, and as such, the numbers have been accounted for through the Request for Common Forms.

• SF 424A, “Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (OMB Control No. 4040-0006): Re-lenders use this form to project costs and expenses for the re-lending provision. The form also provides Rural Development information on matching funds.

• SF 424B, “Assurances—Non-Construction Programs (OMB Control No. 4040-0007): Re-lenders read and sign this form to indicate the organization's intent to comply with the laws, regulations, and policies to which a loan is subject.

• AD 3030, “Representations Regarding Felony Convictions and Tax Delinquency Status for Corporate Applicants” and AD 3031, “Assurances Regarding Felony Convictions and Tax Delinquency Status for Corporate Applicants” (OMB Control No. 0505-0025): Completed by the re-lender once at the time of application. These two forms are required by Public Law 114-113.

• SF LLL, “Certification of Non-Lobbying Activities or Disclosure of Lobbying Activities” (OMB Control No. 4040-0013): Re-lenders who are awarded loans over $100,000 and/or lobby are required to complete this form.

• SF 3881, ACH Vendor/Miscellaneous Payment Enrollment Form (OMB Control No. 1510-0056): The re-lender and its financial institution will complete this form and provide it to Rural Development. The information contained in the form will be used to establish an electronic transfer of loan funds to the re-lender.

Recordkeeping Requirements:

• Quarterly Financial Statements: Re-lenders will be required to submit financial statements quarterly to Rural Development. Rural Development will use the information to monitor the credit worthiness and paying capacity of the re-lender. Financial statements will include a verification by an official of the re-lender's organization.

• Quarterly report of re-lent loans: Re-lenders will provide a report that includes the following: Borrower name, outstanding principal and interest balance, status, amount and due date of the next installment due, and servicing actions conducted for any delinquent loan. Rural Development will use the information to monitor the current credit worthiness and paying capacity of the borrowers and to insure that re-lenders are adequately servicing the loan accounts in compliance with the Re-lender's Agreement.

• Annual Audit: Annual audits are required from all re-lenders. The audits help Rural Development determine if the operations are sound and the intended services are being provided to the public. Often Rural Development can use the audits to predict developing financial problems and suggest corrective steps before the problems become serious.

• Financial Strength and Performance Rating: Re-lenders will provide Rural Development with their most recent Financial Strength and Performance Rating, not more than 3 years old, as conducted by an independent third party. The assessment includes overall creditworthiness based on an analysis of past financial performance, current financial strength, and apparent risk factors. The documentation insures Rural Development that the re-lender continues to have the requisite capital, asset quality, management, earnings, liquidity, and sensitivity to market risk to operate a federally financed loan fund.

• Certification Re-lender and Borrower have met requirements of 7 CFR 3575.42 and 7 CFR 3575.43: Re-lenders are required to inform Borrowers of their responsibility for planning, bidding, contracting and construction and certify at the end of construction that all funds were utilized for authorized purposes.

• Civil Rights data: Re-lenders are required to comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They will collect and maintain data on Applicants by race, sex, and national origin, and ensure that Applicants also collect and maintain the same data on beneficiaries. Rural Development will use the information to conduct a compliance review once every three years.

• Documentation of providing funds to Persistent Poverty County(ies) and High Poverty Area(s): Re-lenders will provide this documentation to meet the additional terms specified in the annual Notice so Rural Development can monitor the re-lender's agreement to loan a majority of funds to applicants whose projects are located in these areas. Documentation is accessible to the re-lender at public Web sites identified by Rural Development in the annual Notice.

Information needed is specific to each re-lender. The Agency has many requirements that involve certifications from the re-lender as well as other parties involved. The Agency could not comply with legislative mandates without these certifications. All of the public use forms have been automated and put on the internet to comply with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act; however, at this time, the Agency is not collecting any of this information through an electronic application system. Based on the eGov initiative, all efforts will be made to comply with the migration of federal forms into web-based fillable format consistent with the Agency's timeline.

The Agency has reviewed all loan programs it administers to determine which programs may be similar in intent and purpose. The Agency has other programs that are similar. If there were simultaneous participation in more than one Agency's programs, the Agency would make every effort to accommodate the requests within the same set of applications and processing forms. This effort is presently facilitated by assignment of management of these programs to the same program area of responsibility. If a re-lender is applying for or receiving a loan from another Federal agency, forms and documents furnished by the other agency would be utilized to the extent possible.

Information to be collected is in a format designed to minimize the paperwork burden on small businesses and other small entities. The information collected is the minimum needed by the Agency to approve loans and monitor re-lender performance.

The information collected under this program is considered to be the minimum necessary to conform to the requirements of the program regulations established by law. Information is collected only when needed, and we believe no reduction of collection is possible. Failure to collect proper information could result in improper determinations of eligibility, improper use of funds, and/or unsound loans.

Non-Discrimination Policy

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by:

The Agency is interested in receiving comments on all aspects of the interim rule. Thus, the Agency encourages interested persons and organizations to submit written comments, which may include data, suggestions, or opinions. Commenters should include their name, address, and other appropriate contact information. If persons with disabilities (e.g., deaf, hard of hearing, or have speech difficulties) require an alternative means of receiving this notice (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape) in order to submit comments, please contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

Comments may be submitted by any of the means identified in the ADDRESSES section. If comments are submitted by mail or hand delivery, they should be submitted in an unbound format, no larger than letter-size, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If confirmation of receipt is requested, a stamped, self-addressed, postcard or envelope should be enclosed. RD will consider all comments received during the comment period and will address comments in the preamble to the final regulation.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1942

Business and industry, Community development, Community facilities, Grant programs—Housing and community development, Industrial park, Loan programs—Housing and community development, Loan security, Rural areas, Waste treatment and disposal—Domestic, Water supply—Domestic.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, Chapter XVIII, Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 1942—ASSOCIATIONS1. The authority citation for part 1942 continues to read as follows:Authority:

(a) This subpart outlines the policies and procedures for making and processing direct loans for Community Facilities except fire and rescue and other small essential community facility loans and water and waste disposal facilities. This subpart applies to Community Facilities loans for fire and rescue and other small essential community facility loans only as specifically provided for in subpart C of this part. Water and waste loans are provided for in part 1780 of this title.

(1) The policies and procedures in this subpart address both loans between the Agency and the applicant and between the Agency and an approved eligible re-lender who then relends the funds to eligible applicants for eligible projects under this subpart.

(2) The Agency shall cooperate fully with State, Tribal and local agencies in making loans to assure maximum support to the State and Tribal strategies for rural development. State Directors and their staffs shall maintain coordination and liaison with State agency and substate planning districts. Funds allocated for use under this subpart are also for the use of Indian tribes within the State, regardless of whether State development strategies include Indian reservations within the State's boundaries. Indians residing on such reservations must have equal opportunity to participate in the benefits of these programs as compared with other residents of the State.

(3) Federal statutes provide for extending Agency financial programs without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, marital status, age, or physical/mental handicap. The participants must possess the capacity to enter into legal contracts under State and local statutes.

(4) Any processing or servicing activity conducted pursuant to this subpart involving authorized assistance to Agency employees, members of their families, known close relatives, or business or close personal associates, is subject to the provisions of subpart D of part 1900 of this chapter. Applicants for this assistance are required to identify any known relationship or association with an Agency employee.

3. Add § 1942.30 to read as follows:§ 1942.30 Re-lending.

The provisions in this section establish the process by which the Agency may make loans to eligible re-lenders who then in turn re-loan the funds to eligible applicants for eligible projects under this subpart. This section may be supplemented by provisions in annual notices published in the Federal Register. In such notices, the Agency may impose, among other things, limits on the total amount of funds to be used through this process and the amount of the loan funding that will be provided to each re-lender.

(a) Re-lender eligibility. Re-lenders must meet each of the following requirements:

(1) Demonstrate the legal authority necessary to make and service loans involving community infrastructure and development similar to the type of projects listed in § 1942.17(d);

(2) Meet federal, state and local requirements in accordance with § 1942.17(k);

(3) As specified in the annual Federal Register notice, demonstrate that a percent of its portfolio is for projects located in or serving Persistent Poverty County(ies) or High Poverty Areas, or that the Re-lender has a minimum amount of experience making loans for projects located in or serving Persistent Poverty County(ies) or High Poverty Area(s);

(4) Agree to provide adequate collateral, as determined by the Agency, to support the loan request;

(5) Provide a Letter of Intent from a financial institution that an Irrevocable Letter of Credit (or performance guarantee) acceptable to the Agency will be issued by the financial institution if the Re-lender is approved for funding;

(6) As specified in the annual Federal Register notice, agree to provide an Irrevocable Letter of Credit (or performance guarantee) acceptable to the Agency in the minimum amount equal to the principal and interest installments due the Agency during the first five (5) years of the loan, prior to receiving loan disbursements;

(7) Demonstrate one of the following, as provided in the annual Federal Register notice:

(i) Re-lender is regulated and supervised by a Federal or State Banking Regulatory Agency that is subject to credit examination, AND the institution, its subsidiaries, holding companies, and affiliates are not on their respective regulatory agency's watch list and have no regulatory actions outstanding against them;

(ii) Re-lender has a strong Financial Strength and Performance Rating as specified in the annual Federal Register notice. The achieved rating must indicate financial strength, performance, and risk management practices that consistently provide for safe and sound operations; or

(iii) At the time of application, Re-lender provides written documentation, acceptable to the Agency, from a financial institution that an Irrevocable Letter of Credit (or performance guarantee) acceptable to the Agency will be issued by the financial institution, if the Re-lender is approved for funding; and the Re-lender:

(A) Obtains a strong Financial Strength and Performance Rating as specified in the Annual Federal Register notice prior to any funds being advanced; or

(B) Proves to be a financially sound institution as determined by the Agency in accordance with the annual Federal Register notice;

(8) Be a legal, non-governmental entity at the time of application (with the exception of Tribal governmental entities);

(9) Be a member of a national organization that provides training, technical assistance and credit evaluation of member organizations, such as FDIC, NCUA or other similar organizations; or be certified by a Government agency as having a primary mission of promoting community development in low-income target markets and perform training and technical assistance as part of that mission;

(10) Agrees to loan a majority of Agency funds, as specified in the annual Federal Register notice, to applicants whose projects are located in or serve Persistent Poverty County(ies) or High Poverty Area(s); and

(11) Meet any other criteria specified by the Agency in the annual Notice published in the Federal Register.

(b) Applicant and project eligibility. To be eligible for a CF Direct loan from a re-lender under this section,

(1) The applicant must meet the eligibility requirements found in this subpart, including but not limited to those in § 1942.2(a)(2) regarding the inability to obtain credit elsewhere and § 1942.17(b) and (k);

(2) The applicant must comply with any other criteria specified by the Agency in the annual Program Notice published in the Federal Register; and

(3) The project must:

(i) Meet all of the eligibility requirements for a project found in this subpart, including but not limited to § 1942.17(b)(2), (d), (e), and (g) and all environmental review requirements as specified in § 1942.2(b) and 7 CFR part 1970; and

(ii) Meet any additional requirements that may be specified in the program's annual Notice published in the Federal Register.

(c) Application submission requirements. To apply for funds under this section, a Re-lender must timely submit all items as specified in the annual Federal Register notice.

(d) Evaluation criteria. The Agency will score and rank all eligible and complete Re-lender applications based upon the evaluation factors set out in the annual Federal Register notice, including but not limited to: Lending experience and strength of the re-lender, poverty and project service area, and Administrator's discretionary points.

(e) Other Re-lender requirements. Prior to receiving a direct loan from the Agency, the eligible re-lender must:

(1) Enter into a Re-lender's agreement provided by the Agency;

(2) Execute a promissory note;

(3) Provide an Agency approved Irrevocable Letter of Credit (or performance guarantee) acceptable to the Agency in the minimum amount equal to the principal and interest installments due during the first five (5) years of the loan, prior to receiving any loan disbursements;

(4) Provide adequate collateral satisfactory to the agency; and

(5) Meet any other loan conditions as described in the annual Notice published in the Federal Register.

(f) Loan origination and servicing—(1)Re-lenders. After the Agency loan is made to the Re-lender, the Re-lender is responsible for:

(i) Presenting to the Agency eligible CF direct loan applications in accordance with this subpart and any additional terms established in the applicable annual Notice published in the Federal Register;

(ii) Underwriting and servicing each loan reviewed and approved by the Agency under this section;

(iii) Submitting reports to the Agency after any loan disbursement as specified in the annual Federal Register notice;

(iv) Certifying to the Agency that the Re-lender and Borrower have met the requirements of 7 CFR 3575.42 and 3575.43 for planning, bidding, contracting and construction, as specified in the annual Federal Register Notice;

(v) Complying with other Agency requirements as specified in the annual Federal Register notice concerning environmental, civil rights, and other applicable Federal state, and local law;

(vi) Obtaining disbursement of loan funds according to this section and the annual Federal Register notice within 5 years. Any loan funds not disbursed within that time will be deobligated and become unavailable for disbursement.

(2) Agency responsibilities. (i) Based on the information presented by the Re-lender and any additional information that may be requested by the Agency, the Agency will determine the eligibility of the applicant and project under this subpart.

(ii) The Agency will notify the re-lender of its determination and any administrative review or appeal rights for Agency decisions made under this subpart. Programmatic decisions based on clear and objective statutory or regulatory requirements are not appealable; however, such decisions are reviewable for appealability by the National Appeals Division (NAD). The applicant and re-lender may appeal any Agency decision that directly and adversely impacts them. For an adverse decision that impacts the applicant, the re-lender and applicant must jointly execute a written request for appeal for an alleged adverse decision made by the Agency. An adverse decision that only impacts the re-lender may be appealed by the re-lender only. A decision by a re-lender adverse to the interest of an applicant or borrower is not a decision by the Agency, whether or not concurred in by the Agency. Appeals will be conducted by USDA NAD and will be handled in accordance with 7 CFR part 11.

(iii) For approved eligible borrowers and projects, the Agency will confirm that all environmental requirements as specified in this subpart and 7 CFR part 1970 have been met and that the Re-lender has provided adequate security for its loan, before the Agency will disburse funds to the Re-lender;

(iv) The Agency will service each re-lender's loan in accordance with 7 CFR part 1951, subpart E. The Agency may suspend further disbursements, and pursue any other available and appropriate remedies, if any of the re-lender loans become troubled, delinquent, or otherwise in default status, or if the re-lender is not meeting the terms of its Relender's Agreement.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is issuing an interim final rule to amend its regulations governing the maximum civil monetary penalties assessable for violations of statutes, rules, and orders within the Commission's jurisdiction. The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended most recently by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, requires the Commission to issue this interim final rule.

1. In this interim final rule, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is complying with its statutory obligation to amend the civil monetary penalties provided by law for matters within the agency's jurisdiction.

I. Background

2. The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (2015 Adjustment Act),1 which further amended the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (1990 Adjustment Act),2 requires the head of each federal agency to issue an “interim final rule” by July 1, 2016 adjusting for inflation each “civil monetary penalty” provided by law within the agency's jurisdiction. The agency must then update each such civil monetary penalty on an annual basis every January 15 thereafter.3

3. The 2015 Adjustment Act defines a civil monetary penalty as any penalty, fine, or other sanction that: (A)(i) Is for a specific monetary amount as provided by federal law or (ii) has a maximum amount provided for by federal law; (B) is assessed or enforced by an agency pursuant to federal law; and (C) is assessed or enforced pursuant to an administrative proceeding or a civil action in the federal courts.4 This definition applies to the maximum civil penalties that may be imposed under the Federal Power Act (FPA),5 the Natural Gas Act (NGA),6 the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA),7 and the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA).8

4Id. (3).

5 16 U.S.C. 791a et seq.

6 15 U.S.C. 717 et seq.

7 15 U.S.C. 3301 et seq.

8 49 App. U.S.C. 1 et seq. (1988).

4. Under the 2015 Adjustment Act, for the initial adjustment, the first step for such adjustment of a civil monetary penalty for inflation requires determining the percentage by which the U.S. Department of Labor's Consumer Price Index for all-urban consumers (CPI-U) for October of the preceding year exceeds the CPI-U for October of the year in which the civil monetary penalty was last set or adjusted under a provision of law other than the 1990 and 2015 Adjustment Acts.9 The Office of Management and Budget has instructed agencies to use the CPI-U for 1914 when calculating the inflation multiplier for penalties established or last adjusted prior to 1914.10 Adjustments previously made for inflation pursuant to the 1990 Adjustment Act must be excluded.11 The first adjustment, which is the subject of the present interim final rule, is limited to 150 percent of the civil monetary penalty that was in effect on November 2, 2015.12

5. The second step requires multiplying the CPI-U percentage increase by the applicable November 2, 2015 civil monetary penalty.13 This step results in a base penalty increase amount.

13Id. (5)(a).

6. The third step requires rounding the base penalty increase amount to the nearest dollar.14

14Id.

7. Under the 2015 Adjustment Act, an agency is directed to use the civil monetary penalty applicable at the time of assessment of a civil penalty, regardless of the date on which the violation occurred.15

15Id. (6).

8. The Commission currently has civil monetary penalty authority of up to $1,000,000 per violation, per day under section 316A(b) of the FPA.16 This civil monetary penalty applies to violations of provisions of Part II of the FPA and to violations of rules and orders promulgated pursuant to Part II of the FPA. Congress increased this Civil Monetary Penalty in 2005 from $10,000 to $1,000,000, and it expanded the scope of conduct to which the penalty applies. The Commission has not adjusted this civil monetary penalty for inflation. Inflation during the relevant period was 19.397 percent 17—the percentage by which the CPI-U for October of the prior year (October 2015, for which the CPI-U=237.838) exceeds the CPI-U for October of the year in which the Civil Monetary Penalty was last set or adjusted (October 2005, for which the CPI-U=199.2). The resulting civil monetary penalty is $1,193,970.18

16 16 U.S.C. 825o-1(b).

17See Bureau of Labor Statistics, Table 24. Historical Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U): U.S. City Average, All Items—Continued, http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpid1602.pdf (last visited March 22, 2016); see also Memorandum from Shaun Donovan, at 6.

18 The Commission may impose a penalty against a user, owner, or operator of the bulk-power system for a violation of a reliability standard pursuant to FPA section 215(c)(3), 16 U.S.C. 824o(c)(3). The Commission concluded in 2006 that FPA section 316A establishes the limit on such monetary penalties. See Rule Concerning Certification of the Electric Reliability Organization, and Procedures for the Establishment, Approval, and Enforcement of Electric Reliability Standards, Order No. 672, 71 FR 8662, 8711 (Feb. 17, 2006).

9. The Commission currently has civil monetary penalty authority of $11,000 per violation, per day under section 31(c) of the FPA.19 This civil monetary penalty applies to licensees, permittees, and exemptees who: (a) Violate or fail or refuse to comply with any rule or regulation issued under Part I of the FPA; (b) violate or fail or refuse to comply with any term or condition of a license, permit, or exemption under Part I of the FPA; or (c) violate or fail or refuse to comply with any order issued pursuant to the Commission's authority to monitor and investigate licenses and permits issued under Part I of the FPA. Congress established this civil monetary penalty at $10,000 in 1986.20 The only time that the Commission adjusted this civil monetary penalty was in 2002, when it increased the civil monetary penalty from $10,000 to $11,000 to account for inflation pursuant to the 1990 Adjustment Act.21 According to the 2015 Adjustment Act, however, the Commission must disregard such increases made pursuant to the 1990 Adjustment Act. Inflation between October 1986 and October 2015 was 115.628 percent—the percentage by which the CPI-U for October of the prior year (October 2015, for which the CPI-U=237.838) exceeds the CPI-U for October of the year in which the civil monetary penalty was last set or adjusted for purposes of the 2015 Adjustment Act (October 1986, for which the CPI-U=110.3).22 The resulting increase rounded to the nearest dollar is $11,563, and the resulting civil monetary penalty is $21,563.

22See Bureau of Labor Statistics, Table 24. Historical Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U): U.S. City Average, All Items—Continued, http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpid1602.pdf (last visited March 22, 2016); see also Memorandum from Shaun Donovan, at 6.

10. Under section 315(a) of the FPA, public utilities or licensees are currently subject to civil forfeiture for any willful failure to: Comply with any order of the Commission; file any report required under the FPA or any rule or regulation promulgated pursuant to the FPA; submit any information or document required by the Commission in the course of an investigation conducted under the FPA; or to appear at any hearing or investigation in response to a subpoena issued under the FPA.23 Congress established this civil monetary penalty at $1,000 in 1935.24 The only time that the Commission adjusted it was in 2002, when the Commission increased the civil monetary penalty from $1,000 to $1,100 to account for inflation pursuant to the 1990 Adjustment Act.25 The Commission must disregard such increases made pursuant to the 1990 Adjustment Act. Inflation during the relevant period was 1,636.044 percent—the percentage by which the CPI-U for October of the prior year (October 2015, for which the CPI-U=237.838) exceeds the CPI-U for October of the year in which the Civil Monetary Penalty was last set or adjusted (October 1935, for which the CPI-U=13.7).26 However, the 2015 Adjustment Act caps civil monetary penalty increases at 150 percent, so the resulting increase is $1,750 and the resulting civil monetary penalty is $2,750.

23 16 U.S.C. 825n(a); 18 CFR 385.1602(c).

24 49 Stat. 803, 861 (codified at 16 U.S.C. 825n(a)).

25Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment Rule, 67 FR at 52412.

26See Bureau of Labor Statistics, Table 24. Historical Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U): U.S. City Average, All Items—Continued, http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpid1602.pdf (last visited March 22, 2016); see also Memorandum from Shaun Donovan, at 6.

11. The Commission currently has civil monetary penalty authority of $1,000,000 per violation, per day under section 22 of the NGA.27 This civil monetary penalty applies to violations of the NGA, and to violations of rules, regulations, restrictions, conditions, and orders promulgated pursuant to the NGA. Congress established this civil monetary penalty in 2005, and neither the Commission nor Congress has adjusted it for inflation. Inflation during the relevant period was 19.397 percent—the percentage by which the CPI-U for October of the prior year (October 2015, for which the CPI-U=237.838) exceeds the CPI-U for October of the year in which the civil monetary penalty was last set or adjusted (October 2005, for which the CPI-U=199.2).28 The resulting civil monetary penalty is $1,193,970.

27 15 U.S.C. 717t-1.

28See Bureau of Labor Statistics, Table 24. Historical Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U): U.S. City Average, All Items—Continued, http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpid1602.pdf (last visited March 22, 2016); see also Memorandum from Shaun Donovan, at 6.

12. The Commission currently has civil monetary penalty authority of $1,000,000 per violation, per day, under section 504(b)(6)(A)(i) of the NGPA.29 This civil monetary penalty applies to violations of any provision of the NGPA and to violations of any rule or order issued under the NGPA, including 18 CFR 358.4, 358.5, 250.16, and 284.13. Congress increased this Civil Monetary Penalty in 2005 from $5,000 to $1,000,000, and the Commission has not adjusted it since. Nor has it made conforming changes to one of its regulations, 18 CFR 250.16(e), to reflect the statutory increase of this civil monetary penalty. Inflation during the relevant period was 19.397 percent—the percentage by which the CPI-U for October of the prior year (October 2015, for which the CPI-U=237.838) exceeds the CPI-U for October of the year in which the civil monetary penalty was last set or adjusted (October 2005, for which the CPI-U=199.2).30 The resulting civil monetary penalty is $1,193,970.

29 15 U.S.C. 3414(b)(6)(A)(i).

30See Bureau of Labor Statistics, Table 24. Historical Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U): U.S. City Average, All Items—Continued, at http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpid1602.pdf (last visited March 22, 2016); see also Memorandum from Shaun Donovan, at 6. The Office of Management and Budget has instructed agencies to use the CPI-U for 1914 when calculating the inflation multiplier for penalties established or last adjusted prior to 1914. See Memorandum from Shaun Donovan, at 6.

13. Under section 6(10) of the ICA, pipeline carriers, receivers, and trustees are currently subject to a civil penalty for failure or refusal to comply with regulations or orders concerning posting and filing rate schedules issued by the Commission under section 6 of the ICA.31 Congress established this civil monetary penalty in 1910 at $500 per offense and $25 per day after the first day,32 and that penalty has not been adjusted since. Inflation during the relevant period was 2,254.832 percent—the percentage by which the CPI-U for October of the prior year (October 2015, for which the CPI-U=237.838) exceeds the CPI-U for October 1914 (for which the CPI-U=10.1).33 However, the 2015 Adjustment Act caps civil monetary penalty increases at 150 percent, so the base penalty increase is $750, and the per day increase is $37.50. The resulting civil monetary penalty is $1250 per offense and $62.50 per day after the first day.

31 49 App. U.S.C. 6(10) (1988).

32 36 Stat. 539, 548 (codified at 49 App. U.S.C. 6(10) (1988).

33See Bureau of Labor Statistics, Table 24. Historical Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U): U.S. City Average, All Items—Continued, at http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpid1602.pdf (last visited March 22, 2016); see also Memorandum from Shaun Donovan, Office of Management and Budget, Implementation of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, 6 (Feb. 24, 2016). The Office of Management and Budget has instructed agencies to use the CPI-U for 1914 when calculating the inflation multiplier for penalties established or last adjusted prior to 1914. See Memorandum from Shaun Donovan, at 6.

14. Under section 16(8) of the ICA, pipeline carriers, representatives or agents of carriers, receivers, trustees, or agents of the above are currently subject to a civil penalty for knowing or neglectful failure to comply with orders issued by the Commission under sections 3 (prohibiting undue or unreasonable preferences, advantages, discrimination, or disadvantages), 13 (concerning Commission investigations and power to set aside, after full hearing, any “rate, fare, charge, classification, regulation, or practice caus[ing] any undue or reasonable advantage, preference, or prejudice . . . .”), or 15 (empowering the Commission, after full hearing, to set aside any rate, fare, or charge that “is or will be unjust or unreasonable or unjustly discriminatory or unduly preferential or prejudicial, or otherwise in violation of any provisions of [the ICA]”).34 Congress initially established this civil monetary penalty in 1910 at $5,000 per offense, per day,35 and it has not been adjusted since. Inflation during the relevant period was 2,254.832 percent—percentage by which the CPI-U for October of the prior year (October 2015, for which the CPI-U=237.838) exceeds the CPI-U for October 1914 (for which the CPI-U=10.1).36 However, the 2015 Adjustment Act caps civil monetary penalty increases at 150 percent, so the resulting increase is $7,500 and the resulting civil monetary penalty is $12,500 per day.

34 49 App. U.S.C. 16(8) (1988).

35 36 Stat. 539, 554 (codified at 49 App. U.S.C. 16(8) (1988)).

36See Bureau of Labor Statistics, Table 24. Historical Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U): U.S. City Average, All Items—Continued, at http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpid1602.pdf (last visited March 22, 2016); see also Memorandum from Shaun Donovan, at 6. The Office of Management and Budget has instructed agencies to use the CPI-U for 1914 when calculating the inflation multiplier for penalties established or last adjusted prior to 1914. See Memorandum from Shaun Donovan, at 6.

15. Under section 19a(k) of the ICA, pipeline carriers, receivers of pipeline carriers, and operating trustees are currently subject to a civil penalty for their failure to comply with Commission's requirements to provide information, or to provide access, in connection with the Commission's valuation of a pipeline carrier's property under section 19(a) of the ICA.37 Congress established this civil monetary penalty in 1913 at $500 per offense, per day,38 and it has not been adjusted since. Inflation during the relevant period was 2,254.832 percent—percentage by which the CPI-U for October of the prior year (October 2015, for which the CPI-U=237.838) exceeds the CPI-U for October 1914 (for which the CPI-U=10.1).39 However, the 2015 Adjustment Act caps civil monetary penalty increases at 150 percent, so the resulting increase is $750 and the resulting civil monetary penalty is $1,250 per offense, per day.

37 49 App. U.S.C. 19a(k) (1988).

38 37 Stat. 701, 703 (codified at 49 App. U.S.C. 19a(k) (1988)).

39See Bureau of Labor Statistics, Table 24. Historical Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U): U.S. City Average, All Items—Continued, at http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpid1602.pdf (last visited March 22, 2016); see also Memorandum from Shaun Donovan, at 6. The Office of Management and Budget has instructed agencies to use the CPI-U for 1914 when calculating the inflation multiplier for penalties established or last adjusted prior to 1914. See Memorandum from Shaun Donovan, at 6.

16. Under section 20(7)(a) of the ICA, pipeline carriers and their lessors are currently subject to a civil penalty for their failure to keep or submit certain accounts, records, or memoranda required by the Commission under authority granted in section 20 of the ICA.40 Congress last adjusted this civil monetary penalty in 1940 at $500 per offense, per day,41 and it has not been adjusted since. Inflation during the relevant period was 1,598.843 percent—percentage by which the CPI-U for October of the prior year (October 2015, for which the CPI-U=237.838) exceeds the CPI-U for October of the year in which the civil monetary penalty was last set or adjusted (October 1940, for which the CPI-U=14).42 However, the 2015 Adjustment Act caps civil monetary penalty increases at 150 percent, so the resulting increase is $750 and the resulting civil monetary penalty is $1,250 per offense, per day.

40 49 App. U.S.C. 20(7)(a) (1988).

41 54 Stat. 916, 918 (codified at 49 App. U.S.C. 20(7)(a) (1988)).

42See Bureau of Labor Statistics, Table 24. Historical Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U): U.S. City Average, All Items—Continued, at http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpid1602.pdf (last visited March 22, 2016); see also Memorandum from Shaun Donovan, at 6.

17. The preceding adjustments are reflected in the following table:

SourceExisting maximum civil

monetary penalty

New adjusted civil monetary penalty16 U.S.C. 825o-1(b), Sec. 316A of the Federal Power Act$1,000,000 per violation, per day$1,193,970 per violation, per day.16 U.S.C. 823b(c), Sec. 31(c) of the Federal Power Act$11,000 per violation, per day$21,563 per violation, per day.16 U.S.C. 825n(a), Sec. 315(a) of the Federal Power Act$ 1,100 per violation$2,750 per violation.15 U.S.C. 717t-1, Sec. 22 of the Natural Gas Act$1,000,000 per violation, per day$1,193,970 per violation, per day.15 U.S.C. 3414(b)(6)(A)(i), Sec. 504(b)(6)(A)(i) of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978$1,000,000 per violation, per day$1,193,970 per violation, per day.49 App. U.S.C. 6(10) (1988), Sec. 6(10) of the Interstate Commerce Act$500 per offense and $25 per day after the first day$1,250 per offense and $62.50 per day after the first day.49 App. U.S.C. 16(8) (1988), Sec. 16(8) of the Interstate Commerce Act$5,000 per violation, per day$12,500 per violation, per day.49 App. U.S.C. 19a(k) (1988), Sec. 19a(k) of the Interstate Commerce Act$500 per offense, per day$1,250 per offense, per day.49 App. U.S.C. 20(7)(a) (1988), Sec. 20(7)(a) of the Interstate Commerce Act$500 per offense, per day$1,250 per offense, per day.III. Administrative Findings

18. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, a final rule may be issued without prior public notice and comment if the agency finds that notice and comment are impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.43 The Commission finds that prior notice and comment for this rulemaking would be impractical, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest. The Commission is required by law to adopt an interim final rule adjusting its civil monetary penalties for inflation. Moreover, the formula for the civil monetary penalty adjustment is prescribed by Congress and is not subject to the Commission's discretion. Because the Commission is required by law to undertake these inflation adjustments, and because the Commission lacks discretion with respect to the method and amount of the adjustments, prior notice and comment would be impractical, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest.

43 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Statement

19. The Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, requires agencies to certify that rules promulgated under their authority will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses.44 The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act apply only to rules promulgated following notice and comment.45 The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act do not apply to this rulemaking because the Commission is issuing this interim final rule without notice and comment.

44 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

45 5 U.S.C. 603, 604.

V. Paperwork Reduction Act

20. This rule does not require the collection of information. The Commission is therefore not required to submit this rule for review to the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.46

46 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).

VI. Document Availability

21. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and print the contents of this document via the Internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.

22. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number (excluding the last three digits) in the docket number field.

23. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's Web site during normal business hours from the Commission's Online Support at 202-502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-8371, TTY (202) 502-8659, public.referenceroom@ferc.gov.

VII. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

24. For the same reasons the Commission has determined that public notice and comment are unnecessary, impractical, and contrary to the public interest, the Commission finds good cause to adopt an effective date that is less than 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act,47 and therefore, the regulation is effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

47 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

25. The Commission has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget, that this rule is not a “major rule” as defined in section 351 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This Final Rule is being submitted to the Senate, House, and Government Accountability Office.

(e) Penalty for failure to comply. (1) Any person who transports gas for others pursuant to Subparts B or G of Part 284 of this chapter and who knowingly violates the requirements of §§ 358.4 and 358.5, § 250.16, or § 284.13 of this chapter will be subject, pursuant to sections 311(c), 501, and 504(b)(6) of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978, to a civil penalty, which the Commission may assess, of not more than $1,193,970 for any one violation.

PART 385—RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE3. The authority citation for part 385 is revised to read as follows:Authority:

The purpose of this subpart is to make inflation adjustments to the civil monetary penalties provided by law within the jurisdiction of the Commission. These penalties shall be subject to review and adjustment as necessary at least every year in accordance with the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Act of 1990, as amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015.

In compliance with the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance, this rule adjusts the level of the civil monetary penalty, contained in the National Indian Gaming Commission's (NIGC or Commission) regulation, with an initial “catch-up” adjustment.

DATES:

This interim final rule will have an effective date of August 1, 2016.

On November 2, 2015, the President signed into law the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Sec. 701 of Pub. L. 114-74) (the Act). The Act requires federal agencies to adjust the level of civil monetary penalties with an initial “catch-up” adjustment through an interim final rulemaking and then make subsequent annual adjustments for inflation. A civil monetary penalty is any assessment with a dollar amount that is levied for a violation of a federal civil statute or regulation, and is assessed or enforceable through a civil action in federal court or an administrative proceeding.

II. Calculation of Adjustment

The OMB issued guidance on calculating the catch-up adjustment. See February 24, 2016, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, from Shaun Donovan, Director, Office of Management and Budget, Subject: Implementation of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015. Under this guidance, the Commission has identified one applicable civil monetary penalty and calculated the catch-up adjustment. This rule adjusts the level of the civil monetary penalty contained in 25 CFR 575.4 (“The Chairman may assess a civil fine, not to exceed $25,000 per violation, against a tribe, management contractor, or individual operating Indian gaming for each notice of violation . . .”). The OMB provided to agencies a table of multipliers to adjust the penalty level based on the year that the penalty was established or last adjusted by statute or regulation. The multiplier for 1988 (when the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act was enacted) is 1.97869 ($25,000 × 1.97869 = $49,467).

III. Regulatory MattersRegulatory Planning and Review

This interim final rule is not a significant rule and OMB has reviewed this rule under Executive Order 12866. This rule provides an initial catch-up adjustment of penalties to account for inflation.

(1) This rule will not have an effect of $100 million or more on the economy or will not adversely affect, in a material way, the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities.

(2) This rule will not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency.

(3) This rule does not involve entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights or obligations of recipients.

(4) This regulatory change does not raise novel legal or policy issues.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Commission certifies that this document will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) because the rule makes adjustments for inflation.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

This interim final rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. It will not result in the expenditure by state, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. The rule will not result in a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, federal, state, or local government agencies, or geographic regions. Nor will this rule have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of the U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

This interim final rule does not impose an unfunded mandate of more than $100 million per year on state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. The rule also does not have a significant or unique effect on state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, a statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not required.

Takings

Under the criteria in Executive Order 12630, this interim final rule does not affect individual property rights protected by the Fifth Amendment nor does it involve a compensable “taking.” Thus, a takings implication assessment is not required.

Federalism

Under the criteria in Executive Order 13132, this interim final rule has no substantial direct effect on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

Civil Justice Reform

This interim final rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. Specifically, this rule has been reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and written to minimize litigation. It is written in clear language and contains clear legal standards.

Consultation with Indian Tribes

In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments, Executive Order 13175 (59 FR 22951, November 6, 2000), the Commission has determined that consultations with Indian gaming tribes is not practicable, as Congress has mandated that the civil penalty adjustments in the Act be implemented no later than August 1, 2016.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This interim final rule does not affect any information collections under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

National Environmental Policy Act

This interim final rule does not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

Information Quality Act

In developing this interim final rule, the Commission did not conduct or use a study, experiment, or survey requiring peer review under the Information Quality Act (Pub. L. 106-554).

Effects on the Energy Supply

This interim final rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in Executive Order 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

Clarity of this Regulation

The Commission is required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule that the Commission publishes must:

(a) Be logically organized;

(b) use the active voice to address readers directly;

(c) use clear language rather than jargon;

(d) be divided into short sections and sentences; and

(e) use lists and tables wherever possible.

Required Determinations Under the Administrative Procedure Act

The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 requires agencies to adjust penalties for the catch-up adjustment through an interim final rulemaking. Therefore, the Commission is not required to complete a notice and comment process prior to promulgation.

This rule amends the regulations that govern debt collection at the Department of Justice (Department) to bring the regulations into conformity with government-wide standards, to update or delete obsolete references, and to make other clarifying or technical changes.

On February 18, 2015, the Department published a proposed rule to revise its existing debt collection regulations. See 80 FR 8580-01. Following a public comment period, the Department received two comments. One commenter generally endorsed the rulemaking proposal. Another commenter recommended editorial revisions to clarify the proposed rule without making substantive changes. After due consideration, the Department adopts several of that commenter's suggestions.

The Department also makes other clarifying changes to the proposed rule. In § 11.11(a), the definition of “debt” will clarify that it is an amount determined to be owed to the United States by an appropriate official of the Federal Government “or by a court of competent jurisdiction,” and that it includes “any amounts owed to the United States for the benefit of a third party.” In § 11.11(e), the definition of “legally enforceable” will clarify that there has been a final agency “or court” determination that a debt is due and collectible by offset. Section 11.21(a) will refer to administrative wage garnishment as a tool to collect delinquent nontax debt owed to the United States “through operation of Department programs.” Similarly, the definition of “agency” in § 11.21(c) will refer specifically to the Department. The headings of § 11.21(f)(3) and (f)(4) are also revised for clarity.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Attorney General, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), has reviewed this regulation and by approving it certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Department proposes to collect delinquent nontax debt owed it through an administrative wage garnishment (AWG) process. When an AWG order is issued, employers (including small businesses) that employ workers from whom the Department is collecting a delinquent debt will be required to certify the employee's employment and earnings, garnish wages, and remit withheld wages to the Department. Such procedures are mandated by Department of the Treasury regulations issued to implement the Debt Collection Improvement Act. Employment and salary information is contained in an employer's payroll records. Therefore, it will not take a significant amount of time or result in a significant cost for an employer to certify employment and earnings. Employers of delinquent debtors may be subject at any time to garnishment orders issued by a court to collect delinquent debts of their employees owed to governmental or private creditors. The addition of an AWG process will not significantly increase the burden to which employers are already subject to collect the delinquent debt of their employees.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563—Regulatory Review

This regulation has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” section 1(b), Principles of Regulation, and in accordance with Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” section 1(b), General Principles of Regulation.

The Department of Justice has determined that this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review, and accordingly this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

Further, both Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. The Department has assessed the costs and benefits of this regulation and believes that the regulatory approach selected maximizes net benefits.

Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice Reform

This regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.

Executive Order 13132—Federalism

This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 804. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule imposes no information collection or record keeping requirements.

Accordingly, by virtue of the authority vested in me as Attorney General, including 5 U.S.C. 301 and 28 U.S.C. 509 and 510, part 11 of title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 11—DEBT COLLECTION1. The authority citation for part 11 is revised to read as follows:Authority:

Subpart A—Retention of Private Counsel for Debt Collection§ 11.1 [Amended]2. Amend § 11.1 as follows:a. Remove the word “pilot” from the first sentence; andb. Remove the word “Adminstration” and add in its place the word “Administration”.3. Amend § 11.2 as follows:a. Revise the section heading;b. In the first two sentences, remove the word “pilot”;c. In the third sentence, remove the words “Contracting Officer's Technical Representative (COTR)” and add in their place the words “Contracting Officer's Representative (COR)”; andd. In the fourth sentence, remove the term “COTRs” and add in its place the term “CORs”.

The revision reads as follows:

§ 11.2 Private counsel debt collection program.§ 11.3 [Amended]4. Amend § 11.3 as follows:a. In the first sentence, remove the words “the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, 41 U.S.C. 251 et seq.” and add in their place the words “41 U.S.C. 3307.”b. In the second sentence, add the phrase “and law firms that are qualified HUBZone small business concerns” after the phrase “socially and economically disadvantaged individuals”;c. In the second and third sentences, remove the word “pilot” and add in its place the word “program”; andd. In the third sentence, remove the words “the Commerce Business Daily” and add in their place the term “FedBizOpps”.Subpart B—Administration of Debt Collection§ 11.4 [Amended]5. Amend § 11.4 as follows:a. Remove the second sentence of paragraph (a); andb. In paragraph (b)(3)(i), add the number “1” after the words “26 U.S.C.”6. Revise the heading of subpart C to read as follows:Subpart C—Collection of Debts by Administrative and Tax Refund Offset7. Revise § 11.10 to read as follows:§ 11.10 [Amended]

(a) The provisions of 31 U.S.C. 3716 allow the head of an agency to collect a debt through administrative offset. The provisions of 31 U.S.C. 3716 and 3720A authorize the Secretary of the Treasury, acting through the Bureau of the Fiscal Service (BFS) and other Federal disbursing officials, to offset certain payments to collect delinquent debts owed to the United States. This subpart authorizes the collection of debts owed to the United States by persons, organizations, and other entities by offsetting Federal and certain state payments due to the debtor. It allows for collection of debts that are past due and legally enforceable through offset, regardless of whether the debts have been reduced to judgment.

(b) Nothing in this subpart precludes the Department from pursuing other debt collection procedures to collect a debt that has been submitted to the Department of the Treasury under this subpart. The Department may use such debt collection procedures separately or in conjunction with the offset procedures of this subpart.

(a) Debt. Debt means any amount of funds or property that an appropriate official of the Federal Government or a court of competent jurisdiction determines is owed to the United States, including any amounts owed to the United States for the benefit of a third party, by a person, organization, or entity other than another Federal agency. For purposes of this section, the term debt does not include debts arising under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), the tariff laws of the United States, or the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 301 et seq.), except that “delinquent amounts” as defined in sections 204(f) and 1631(b)(4) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 404(f) and 1383(b)(4)(A), respectively) are included in the term debt, as are “administrative offset[s]” collectible pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3716(c). Debts that have been referred to the Department of Justice by other agencies for collection are included in this definition.

(b) Past due. A past due debt means a debt that has not been paid or otherwise resolved by the date specified in the initial demand for payment, or in an applicable agreement or other instrument (including a post-delinquency repayment agreement), unless other payment arrangements satisfactory to the Department have been made. Judgment debts remain past due until paid in full.

(e) Legally enforceable. Legally enforceable means that there has been a final agency or court determination that the debt, in the amount stated, is due, and there are no legal bars to collection by offset.

9. Amend § 11.12 as follows:a. Remove paragraph (b)(4);b. In paragraph (d)(5), remove the number “65” and add in its place the number “60”;c. In paragraph (d)(6) and paragraph (e), remove the term “IRS” and add in its place the term “BFS”;d. In the second sentence of paragraph (d)(6), remove the word “of” the second time it occurs and add in its place the word “or”; ande. Revise the section heading and paragraphs (a), (b)(2), (b)(3), (c), and (f) to read as follows:§ 11.12 Centralized offset.

(a) The Department must refer any legally enforceable debt more than 120 days past-due to BFS for administrative offset under 31 U.S.C. 3716(c)(6). The Department must refer any past-due, legally enforceable debt to BFS for tax refund offset purposes pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3720A(a) at least once a year. Before referring debts for offset, the Department must certify to BFS compliance with the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 3716(a) and 3720A(b). There is no time limit on when a debt can be collected by offset.

(b) * * *

(2) The Department intends to refer the debt to BFS for offset purposes;

(3) Before the debt is referred to BFS for offset purposes, the debtor has 60 days from the date of notice to present evidence that all or part of the debt is not past due, that the amount is not the amount currently owed, that the outstanding debt has been satisfied, or, if the debt is a judgment debt, that the debt has been satisfied, or that collection action on the debt has been stayed.

(c) If the debtor neither pays the amount due nor presents evidence that the amount is not past due or is satisfied or that collection action is stayed, the Department will refer the debt to BFS for offset purposes.

(f) If more than one debt is owed, payments eligible for offset will be applied in the order in which the debts became past due.

10. Add § 11.13 to read as follows:§ 11.13 Non-centralized offset.

(a) When offset under § 11.12 of this part is not available or appropriate, the Department may collect past-due, legally enforceable debts through non-centralized administrative offset. See 31 CFR 901.3(c). In these cases, the Department may offset a payment internally or make an offset request directly to a Federal payment agency.

(b) At least 30 days before offsetting a payment internally or requesting a Federal payment agency to offset a payment, the Department will send notice to the debtor in accordance with the requirements of 31 U.S.C. 3716(a). When referring a debt for offset under this paragraph (b), the Department will certify, in writing, that the debt is valid, delinquent, legally enforceable, and that there are no legal bars to collection by offset. In addition, the Department will certify its compliance with these regulations concerning administrative offset. See 31 CFR 901.3(c)(2)(ii).

(a) Purpose. In accordance with the Department of the Treasury government-wide regulation at 31 CFR 285.11, this section provides procedures for the Department of Justice (Department) to collect money from a debtor's disposable pay by means of administrative wage garnishment to satisfy delinquent nontax debt owed to the United States through operation of Department programs.

(b) Scope. (1) This section shall apply notwithstanding any provision of State law.

(2) Nothing in this section precludes the compromise of a debt or the suspension or termination of collection action in accordance with applicable law. See, for example, the Federal Claims Collection Standards (FCCS), 31 CFR parts 900-904.

(3) The receipt of payments pursuant to this section does not preclude the Department from pursuing other debt collection remedies, including the offset of Federal payments to satisfy delinquent nontax debt owed to the United States. The Department may pursue such debt collection remedies separately or in conjunction with administrative wage garnishment.

(4) This section does not apply to the collection of delinquent nontax debt owed to the United States from the wages of Federal employees from their Federal employment. Federal pay is subject to the Federal salary offset procedures set forth in 5 U.S.C. 5514 and other applicable laws.

(5) Nothing in this section requires the Department to duplicate notices or administrative proceedings required by contract or other laws or regulations.

(c) Definitions. As used in this section the following definitions shall apply:

Agency means the Department of Justice.

Business day means Monday through Friday. For purposes of computation, the last day of the period will be included unless it is a Federal legal holiday.

Day means calendar day. For purposes of computation, the last day of the period will be included unless it is a Saturday, a Sunday, or a Federal legal holiday.

Debt or claim means any amount of money, funds or property that an appropriate official of the Federal Government determines is owed to the United States by an individual, including debt administered by a third party as an agent for the Federal Government.

Debtor means an individual who owes a delinquent nontax debt to the United States.

Delinquent nontax debt means any nontax debt that has not been paid by the date specified in the agency's initial written demand for payment, or applicable agreement, unless other satisfactory payment arrangements have been made. For purposes of this section, the terms “debt” and “claim” are synonymous and refer to delinquent nontax debt.

Disposable pay means that part of the debtor's compensation (including, but not limited to, salary, bonuses, commissions, and vacation pay) from an employer remaining after the deduction of health insurance premiums and any amounts required by law to be withheld. For purposes of this section, “amounts required by law to be withheld” include amounts for deductions such as Social Security taxes and withholding taxes, but do not include any amount withheld pursuant to a court order.

Employer means a person or entity that employs the services of others and that pays their wages or salaries. The term employer includes, but is not limited to, State and local Governments, but does not include an agency of the Federal Government.

Evidence of service means information retained by the agency indicating the nature of the document to which it pertains, the date of mailing of the document, and to whom the document is being sent. Evidence of service may be retained electronically so long as the manner of retention is sufficient for evidentiary purposes.

Garnishment means the process of withholding amounts from an employee's disposable pay and the paying of those amounts to a creditor in satisfaction of a withholding order.

Withholding order means any order for withholding or garnishment of pay issued by the agency, or judicial or administrative body. For purposes of this section, the terms “wage garnishment order” and “garnishment order” have the same meaning as “withholding order.”

(d) General rule. Whenever the agency determines that a delinquent debt is owed by an individual, the agency may initiate proceedings administratively to garnish the wages of the delinquent debtor.

(e) Notice requirements. (1) At least 30 days before initiating garnishment proceedings, the agency shall mail, by first class mail, to the debtor's last known address, a written notice informing the debtor of:

(i) The nature and amount of the debt;

(ii) The intention of the agency to initiate proceedings to collect the debt through deductions from pay until the debt and all accumulated interest, penalties, and administrative costs are paid in full; and

(iii) An explanation of the debtor's rights, including those set forth in paragraph (e)(2) of this section, and the time frame within which the debtor may exercise those rights.

(2) The debtor shall be afforded the opportunity:

(i) To inspect and copy agency records related to the debt;

(ii) To enter into a written repayment agreement with the agency under terms agreeable to the agency; and

(iii) For a hearing in accordance with paragraph (f) of this section concerning the existence or the amount of the debt or the terms of the proposed repayment schedule under the garnishment order. However, the debtor is not entitled to a hearing concerning the terms of the proposed repayment schedule if these terms have been established by written agreement under paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this section.

(3) The agency will retain evidence of service indicating the date of mailing of the notice.

(f) Hearing—(1) Request for hearing. If the debtor submits a written request for a hearing concerning the existence or amount of the debt or the terms of the repayment schedule (for those repayment schedules not established by written agreement under paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this section), the agency shall provide a hearing, which at the agency's option may be oral or written.

(2) Type of hearing or review. (i) For purposes of this section, whenever the agency is required to afford a debtor a hearing, the agency shall provide the debtor with a reasonable opportunity for an oral hearing when the agency determines that the issues in dispute cannot be resolved by review of the documentary evidence, as, for example, when the validity of the claim turns on the issue of credibility or veracity.

(ii) If the agency determines that an oral hearing is appropriate, the time and location of the hearing shall be established by the agency. An oral hearing may, at the debtor's option, be conducted either in person or by telephone conference. All travel expenses incurred by the debtor in connection with an in-person hearing will be borne by the debtor. All telephonic charges incurred during the hearing will be the responsibility of the agency.

(iii) In those cases where an oral hearing is not provided under this section, the agency shall nevertheless accord the debtor a “paper hearing,” that is, the agency will decide the issues in dispute based upon a review of the written record. The agency will establish a reasonable deadline for the submission of evidence.

(3) Effect of agency receipt of hearing request within 15 business days of notice. Subject to paragraph (f)(12) of this section, if the debtor's written request is received by the agency on or before the 15th business day following the mailing of the notice described in paragraph (e)(1) of this section, the agency shall not issue a withholding order under paragraph (g) of this section until the agency provides the debtor the requested hearing and renders a decision in accordance with paragraphs (f)(9) and (10) of this section.

(4) Effect of agency receipt of hearing request after 15 business days of notice. If the debtor's written request is received by the agency after the 15th business day following the mailing of the notice described in paragraph (e)(1) of this section, the agency shall provide a hearing to the debtor. However, the agency will not delay issuance of a withholding order unless the agency determines that the delay in filing the request was caused by factors over which the debtor had no control, or the agency receives information that the agency believes justifies a delay or cancellation of the withholding order.

(5) Hearing official. A hearing official may be any qualified individual, as determined by the head of the agency, including an administrative law judge.

(6) Procedure. After the debtor requests a hearing, the hearing official shall notify the debtor of:

(i) The date and time of a telephonic hearing;

(ii) The date, time, and location of an in-person oral hearing; or

(iii) The deadline for the submission of evidence for a written hearing.

(7) Burden of proof. (i) The agency will have the initial burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, the existence or amount of the debt.

(ii) If the agency satisfies its initial burden, and the debtor disputes the existence or amount of the debt, the debtor must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that no debt exists or that the amount of the debt is incorrect. In addition, the debtor may present evidence that the terms of the repayment schedule are unlawful or would cause a financial hardship to the debtor, or that collection of the debt may not be pursued due to operation of law.

(8) Record. The hearing official must maintain a summary record of any hearing provided under this section. A hearing is not required to be a formal evidentiary-type hearing. However, witnesses who testify in in-person or telephonic hearings will do so under oath or affirmation.

(9) Date of decision. The hearing official shall issue a written opinion stating the decision as soon as practicable, but not later than 60 days after the date on which the request for such hearing was received by the agency. If an agency is unable to provide the debtor with a hearing and render a decision within 60 days after the receipt of the request for such hearing:

(i) The agency may not issue a withholding order until the hearing is held and a decision rendered; or

(ii) If the agency had previously issued a withholding order to the debtor's employer, the agency must suspend the withholding order beginning on the 61st day after the receipt of the hearing request and continuing until a hearing is held and a decision is rendered.

(10) Content of decision. The written decision shall include:

(i) A summary of the facts presented;

(ii) The hearing official's findings, analysis, and conclusions; and

(iii) The terms of any repayment schedules, if applicable.

(11) Final agency action. The hearing official's decision will be final agency action for purposes of judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 701 et seq.).

(12) Failure to appear. In the absence of good cause shown, a debtor who fails to appear at a hearing scheduled pursuant to paragraph (f)(3) of this section will be deemed as not having timely filed a request for a hearing.

(g) Wage garnishment order. (1) Unless the agency receives information that the agency believes justifies a delay or cancellation of the withholding order, the agency will send, by first class mail, a withholding order to the debtor's employer:

(i) Within 30 days after the debtor fails to make a timely request for a hearing (i.e., within 15 business days after the mailing of the notice described in paragraph (e)(1) of this section), or,

(ii) If the debtor makes a timely request for a hearing, within 30 days after a final decision is made by the agency to proceed with garnishment, or

(iii) As soon as reasonably possible thereafter.

(2) The withholding order sent to the employer under paragraph (g)(1) of this section shall be in a form prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. The withholding order shall contain the signature of, or the image of the signature of, the head of the agency or that person's delegatee. The order shall contain only the information necessary for the employer to comply with the withholding order. Such information includes the debtor's name, address, and Social Security Number, as well as instructions for withholding and information as to where payments should be sent.

(3) The agency will retain evidence of service indicating the date of mailing of the order.

(h) Certification by employer. Along with the withholding order, the agency shall send to the employer a certification in a form prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. The employer shall complete and return the certification to the agency within the time frame prescribed in the instructions to the form. The certification will address matters such as information about the debtor's employment status and disposable pay available for withholding.

(i) Amounts withheld. (1) After receipt of the garnishment order issued under this section, the employer shall deduct from all disposable pay paid to the applicable debtor during each pay period the amount of garnishment described in paragraph (i)(2) of this section.

(2)(i) Subject to the provisions of paragraphs (i)(3) and (4) of this section, the amount of garnishment shall be the lesser of:

(A) The amount indicated on the garnishment order up to 15% of the debtor's disposable pay; or

(B) The amount set forth in 15 U.S.C. 1673(a)(2) (Restriction on Garnishment). That amount is the amount by which a debtor's disposable pay exceeds an amount equivalent to thirty times the Federal minimum wage. See 29 CFR 870.10.

(3) When a debtor's pay is subject to withholding orders with priority the following shall apply:

(i) Unless otherwise provided by Federal law, withholding orders issued under this section shall be paid in the amounts set forth under paragraph (i)(2) of this section and shall have priority over withholding orders that are served later in time. Notwithstanding the foregoing, withholding orders for family support shall have priority over withholding orders issued under this section.

(ii) If amounts are being withheld from a debtor's pay pursuant to a withholding order served on an employer before a withholding order issued pursuant to this section, or if a withholding order for family support is served on an employer at any time, the amounts withheld pursuant to the withholding order issued under this section shall be the lesser of:

(A) The amount calculated under paragraph (i)(2) of this section, or

(B) An amount equal to 25% of the debtor's disposable pay less the amount(s) withheld under the withholding order(s) with priority.

(iii) If a debtor owes more than one debt to the agency, the agency may issue multiple withholding orders if the total amount garnished from the debtor's pay for such orders does not exceed the amount set forth in paragraph (i)(2) of this section.

(4) An amount greater than that set forth in paragraphs (i)(2) and (3) of this section may be withheld upon the written consent of the debtor.

(5) The employer shall promptly pay to the agency all amounts withheld under the withholding order issued pursuant to this section.

(6) An employer shall not be required to vary its normal pay and disbursement cycles in order to comply with the withholding order.

(7) Any assignment or allotment by an employee of the employee's earnings shall be void to the extent it interferes with or prohibits execution of the withholding order issued under this section, except for any assignment or allotment made pursuant to a family support judgment or order.

(8) The employer shall withhold the appropriate amount from the debtor's wages for each pay period until the employer receives notification from the agency to discontinue wage withholding. The garnishment order shall indicate a reasonable period of time within which the employer is required to commence wage withholding.

(j) Exclusions from garnishment. The agency may not garnish the wages of a debtor who it knows has been involuntarily separated from employment until the debtor has been reemployed continuously for at least 12 months. To qualify for this exclusion, upon the request of the agency, the debtor must inform the agency of the circumstances surrounding an involuntary separation from employment.

(k) Financial hardship. (1) A debtor whose wages are subject to a wage withholding order under this section, may, at any time, request a review by the agency of the amount garnished, based on materially changed circumstances such as disability, divorce, or catastrophic illness that result in financial hardship.

(2) A debtor requesting a review under paragraph (k)(1) of this section shall submit the basis for claiming that the current amount of garnishment results in a financial hardship to the debtor, along with supporting documentation. The agency shall consider any information submitted in accordance with procedures and standards established by the agency.

(3) If the agency finds financial hardship, it shall downwardly adjust, by an amount and for a period of time agreeable to the agency, the amount garnished to reflect the debtor's financial condition. The agency will notify the employer of any adjustments to the amounts to be withheld.

(l) Ending garnishment. (1) Once the agency has fully recovered the amounts owed by the debtor, including interest, penalties, and administrative costs consistent with the FCCS, the agency shall send the debtor's employer notification to discontinue wage withholding.

(2) At least annually, an agency shall review its debtors' accounts to ensure that accounts that have been paid in full are no longer subject to garnishment.

(m) Actions prohibited by the employer. An employer may not discharge, refuse to employ, or take disciplinary action against the debtor due to the issuance of a withholding order under this section.

(n) Refunds. (1) If a hearing official, at a hearing held pursuant to paragraph (f)(2) of this section, determines that a debt is not legally due and owing to the United States, the agency shall promptly refund any amount collected by means of administrative wage garnishment.

(2) Unless required by Federal law or contract, refunds under this section shall not bear interest.

(o) Right of action. The agency may sue any employer for any amount that the employer fails to withhold from wages owed and payable to an employee in accordance with paragraphs (g) and (i) of this section. However, a suit may not be filed before the termination of the collection action involving a particular debtor, unless earlier filing is necessary to avoid expiration of any applicable statute of limitations period. For purposes of this section, “termination of the collection action” occurs when the agency has terminated collection action in accordance with the FCCS or other applicable standards. In any event, termination of the collection action will be deemed to have occurred if the agency has not received any payments to satisfy the debt from the particular debtor whose wages were subject to garnishment, in whole or in part, for a period of 1 year.

This document provides notice of substantive rules issued by the Coast Guard that were made temporarily effective but expired before they could be published in the Federal Register. This notice lists temporary safety zones, security zones, special local regulations, drawbridge operation regulations and regulated navigation areas, all of limited duration and for which timely publication in the Federal Register was not possible.

DATES:

This document lists temporary Coast Guard rules that became effective, primarily between July 2013 and December 2015, and were terminated before they could be published in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES:

Temporary rules listed in this document may be viewed online, under their respective docket numbers, using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov.

Coast Guard District Commanders and Captains of the Port (COTP) must be immediately responsive to the safety and security needs within their jurisdiction; therefore, District Commanders and COTPs have been delegated the authority to issue certain local regulations. Safety zones may be established for safety or environmental purposes. A safety zone may be stationary and described by fixed limits or it may be described as a zone around a vessel in motion. Security zones limit access to prevent injury or damage to vessels, ports, or waterfront facilities. Special local regulations are issued to enhance the safety of participants and spectators at regattas and other marine events. Drawbridge operation regulations authorize changes to drawbridge schedules to accommodate bridge repairs, seasonal vessel traffic, and local public events. Regulated Navigation Areas are water areas within a defined boundary for which regulations for vessels navigating within the area have been established by the regional Coast Guard District Commander.

Timely publication of these rules in the Federal Register may be precluded when a rule responds to an emergency, or when an event occurs without sufficient advance notice. The affected public is, however, often informed of these rules through Local Notices to Mariners, press releases, and other means. Moreover, actual notification is provided by Coast Guard patrol vessels enforcing the restrictions imposed by the rule. Because Federal Register publication was not possible before the end of the effective period, mariners were personally notified of the contents of these safety zones, security zones, special local regulations, regulated navigation areas or drawbridge operation regulations by Coast Guard officials on-scene prior to any enforcement action. However, the Coast Guard, by law, must publish in the Federal Register notice of substantive rules adopted. To meet this obligation without imposing undue expense on the public, the Coast Guard periodically publishes a list of these temporary safety zones, security zones, special local regulations, regulated navigation areas and drawbridge operation regulations. Permanent rules are not included in this list because they are published in their entirety in the Federal Register. Temporary rules are also published in their entirety if sufficient time is available to do so before they are placed in effect or terminated.

The following unpublished rules were placed in effect temporarily during the period between July 2013 and December 2015 unless otherwise indicated. To view copies of these rules, visit www.regulations.gov and search by the docket number indicated in the list below.

This final rule makes non-substantive technical, organizational, and conforming amendments to existing regulations throughout title 46 of the Code of Federal Regulations to reorganize Coast Guard offices responsible for administering the Mariner Credentialing Program. This rule will have no substantive effect on the regulated public.

DATES:

This final rule is effective July 6, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket USCG-2016-0315, and are available using the Federal eRulemaking Portal. You can find this docket on the Internet by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2016-0315 in the “Keyword” box, and then clicking “Search.”

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this final rule, call or email Mr. R. Sam Teague, Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-1425, email ronald.s.teague@uscg.mil.

We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this rule. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), the Coast Guard finds that this rule is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking requirements because these changes involve rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice. In addition, the Coast Guard finds that notice and comment procedures are unnecessary under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as this rule consists only of corrections and editorial, organizational, and conforming amendments, and that these changes will have no substantive effect on the regulated public. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that, for the same reasons, good cause exists for making this final rule effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

III. Basis and Purpose

The legal basis of this rule is found in 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 553; 14 U.S.C. 633; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

The purpose of this rule is to announce the reorganization of the offices responsible for administration of the Mariner Credentialing Program (MCP) in order to improve mission execution and organizational efficiency by ensuring all aspects of the Coast Guard's credentialing program report to a single directorate and by creating one centralized office at Headquarters responsible for all technical aspects of the MCP. This rule makes technical and editorial corrections throughout title 46 of the CFR, in conjunction with the assignment of MCP responsibilities to this new office, and does not create or change any substantive requirements.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

The Coast Guard is consolidating the MCP under the newly created Office of Merchant Mariner Credentialing (CG-MMC) to provide program support and policy development to allow the National Maritime Center (NMC) to efficiently issue credentials to U.S. mariners quickly and in full compliance with all applicable domestic and international requirements. Mariners, ship operators, and maritime academies frequently have questions and issues related to implementation of requirements and interpretations of the credentialing standards. The consolidation of the MCP into a single office, under a single directorate that also oversees the National Maritime Center (NMC), will provide a single point of contact at Coast Guard Headquarters for all internal and external customers. A single point of contact will ensure faster and more consistent responses to the maritime industry and the NMC, which is responsible for issuing the credentials. With a single director and chain of command for mariner credentialing, we will ensure greater consistency in creation, implementation, and interpretation of international and domestic standards in this area.

The consolidation of functions will also reduce duplicative efforts within the Coast Guard Headquarters organization. There are numerous redundant processes in our current headquarters organizational structure that are designed to ensure the NMC, the two Prevention directorates, and two Headquarters offices are aligned. Consolidation will eliminate these duplicative processes by placing these functions into a single office in one directorate. We expect this consolidation to yield greater efficiency, with a single office providing centralized and consistent responses to all stakeholders of the MCP.

This final rule amends 46 CFR parts 1, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 15 by removing the mariner credentialing responsibilities from the Director of Inspections and Compliance (CG-5PC) and the Offices of Operating and Environmental Standards (CG-OES) and Commercial Vessel Compliance (CG-CVC). With this final rule, full mariner credentialing responsibilities will be assumed by the Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards through the newly created Office of Merchant Mariner Credentialing (CG-MMC).

V. Regulatory Analyses

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes or Executive Orders.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. Because this rule involves non-substantive changes and internal agency practices and procedures, it will not impose any additional costs on the public. The benefit of the non-substantive changes is improved organizational efficiency. Given that this rule makes changes that involve rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice, and will have no substantive effect on the regulated public, we have not performed any further economic analysis or a regulatory analysis for this rule.

B. Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), rules exempt from the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act are not required to examine the impact of the rule on small entities. The Coast Guard finds that this rule is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking requirements under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A) because these changes involve rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice. In addition, the Coast Guard finds that notice and comment procedures are unnecessary under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as this rule consists only of corrections and editorial, organizational, and conforming amendments, and that these changes will have no substantive effect on the regulated public.

C. Assistance for Small Entities

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction, and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult Mr. R. Sam Teague at 202-372-1425, or by email at ronald.s.teague@uscg.mil. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small businesses. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, please call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).

D. Collection of Information

This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

E. Federalism

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132 (“Federalism”) if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any 1 year. Though this final rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

G. Taking of Private Property

This final rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630 (“Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights”).

H. Civil Justice Reform

This final rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 (“Civil Justice Reform”), to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

I. Protection of Children

We have analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13045 (“Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks”). This final rule is not an economically significant rule and will not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.

J. Indian Tribal Governments

This final rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”), because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

K. Energy Effects

We have analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211 (“Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use”). We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

L. Technical Standards

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.

This final rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

M. Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically excluded under section 2.B.2, figure 2-1, paragraphs (34)(a) and (b) of the Instruction. This final rule involves amendments to regulations that are editorial or procedural, or concern internal agency functions or organization. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket for this final rule where indicated under ADDRESSES.

(e) The Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards (CG-5PS), under the general direction and supervision of the Deputy for Operations Policy and Capabilities (CG-DCO-D) and the Assistant Commandant for Prevention Policy (CG-5P), establishes federal policies for development of marine safety, security, and environmental protection treaties, laws, and regulations; develops safety, security, and environmental protection standards for the maritime industry; integrates all marine safety, security, and environmental protection regulatory programs; prepares legislation, regulations, and industry guidance for new safety and environmental protection programs; maintains an active program for development of third party consensus industry standards, and provides oversight to marine personnel matters.

(1) The Chief, Office of Design and Engineering Standards (CG-ENG), at Headquarters, under the direction of the Assistant Commandant for Prevention Policy (CG-5P) and the Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards (CG-5PS), manages the program for defining the overall regulatory approach for vessels, offshore structures, and other marine systems incorporating safety considerations regarding the role of the human element; develops policies and regulations on load line matters and supervises classification societies authorized to assign load lines on behalf of the Coast Guard; oversees the development and maintenance of programs that incorporate risk-based methods in making safety determinations and policies; and oversees technical research and development for safety and environmental protection associated with marine vessels, structures and facilities.

(2) The Chief, Office of Merchant Mariner Credentialing (CG-MMC), at Headquarters, under the direction of the Assistant Commandant for Prevention Policy (CG-5P) and the Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards (CG-5PS), develops and maintains standards and policy, statutes, regulations and guidance for the maritime industry regarding personnel qualifications, licensing, certification, manning and labor issues; provides oversight of mariner credentialing and marine personnel administration matters, and coordinates the monitoring of U.S. implementation efforts with respect to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification & Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW) 1978, as amended; and reviews mariner appeals of credentialing decisions and provides a recommended final agency action for CG-5PS signature.

(3) The Chief, Office of Operating and Environmental Standards (CG-OES), at Headquarters, under the direction of the Assistant Commandant for Prevention Policy (CG-5P) and the Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards (CG-5PS), coordinates and integrates program standards for vessel and facility operations, cargo systems and handling, and environmental protection; develops and maintains standards, regulations, and industry guidance for maritime industry operations to prevent deaths, injuries, property damage, and environmental harm; develops and maintains safety standards and regulations for commercial fishing industry vessels and uninspected commercial vessels; and develops and maintains health and safety standards and regulations for U.S.-inspected vessels.

(4) The Chief, Office of Standards Evaluation and Development (CG-REG), at Headquarters, under the direction of the Assistant Commandant for Prevention Policy (CG-5P) and the Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards (CG-5PS), coordinates the development of new standards, programs, and regulations across all technical and operational areas of marine safety and environmental protection; provides comprehensive analytical support for all standards assessment and development efforts; coordinates development of measures of effectiveness for assessing regulatory programs and consensus standards; and oversees the Coast Guard's rulemaking development program.

(5) The Commanding Officer, Marine Safety Center, under the direction of the Assistant Commandant for Prevention Policy (CG-5P) and the Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards (CG-5PS), conducts reviews and approvals of plans, calculations, and other materials concerning the design, construction, alterations, and repair of commercial vessels to determine conformance with the marine inspection laws, regulations, and implementing directions, and administers the U.S. Tonnage Measurement program.

(6) The Commanding Officer, Coast Guard National Maritime Center (NMC), under the direction of the Assistant Commandant for Prevention Policy (CG-5P) and the Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards (CG-5PS), and subject to the policy and guidance of the Office of Merchant Mariner Credentialing (CG-MMC); evaluates merchant mariners for suitability for service; issues merchant mariner credentials; evaluates and conducts oversight of approved courses; and exercises operational and administrative control over the Regional Examination Centers.

(f) The Director of Inspections and Compliance (CG-5PC), under the general direction and supervision of the Assistant Commandant for Prevention Policy (CG-5P), acts as Program Manager for the Marine Safety, Security, and Environmental Protection Programs; directs, coordinates, and integrates the Coast Guard's marine safety and environmental protection compliance programs, contingency planning, response operations, and investigations programs; establishes and coordinates field implementation policies and priorities for all marine safety commands and units; serves as the focal point for field support and technical guidance; and provides oversight of vessel documentation matters and, through the District Commander, supervises the administration of the Marine Safety Division of District Offices and Officers in Charge, Marine Inspection.

(1) The Chief, Office of Commercial Vessel Compliance (CG-CVC), at Headquarters, under the direction of the Assistant Commandant for Prevention Policy (CG-5P) and the Director of Inspections and Compliance (CG-5PC), administers and balances all marine safety and environmental protection compliance programs, including direction of Coast Guard activities and oversight of third parties and industry programs; develops, publishes, and maintains program policies for vessel compliance, interprets standards and regulations, and provides field guidance for execution and enforcement; administers the marine inspection program, commercial fishing vessel examination program, and foreign vessel boarding program for the enforcement of commercial vessel material and operational safety standards; and supervises the administration of the manning of U.S. vessels.

(2) The Chief, Office of Environmental Response Policy (CG-MER), at Headquarters, under the Direction of the Deputy for Operations Policy and Capabilities (CG-DCO-D) and the Assistant Commandant for Response Policy (CG-5R), coordinates and integrates field planning, preparedness, and response operations for pollution incidents, natural disasters, marine accidents, terrorism, and other threats to public safety, the marine environment, or marine transportation and commerce; develops, publishes, and maintains program policies for preparedness and response, interprets laws and regulations, and provides field guidance for execution; provides guidance regarding emergency authorities of the Captain of the Port (COTP); and administers Office programs for ports and waterway management, bridging compliance, and response efforts with an active presence in the marine environment.

(3) The Chief, Office of Investigations and Analyses (CG-INV), at Headquarters, under the direction of the Assistant Commandant for Prevention Policy (CG-5P) and the Director of Inspections and Compliance (CG-5PC), reviews investigations of marine casualties; manages, develops policy for and evaluates domestic and international programs and processes associated with investigations of marine casualties and injuries; manages analysis of casualties and casualty data, civil penalties and other remedial programs (including proceedings to suspend or revoke Coast Guard credentials held by mariners); and manages marine employer drug and alcohol testing programs.

(g) The Director of Operations Resource Management (CG-DCO-R), under the general direction and supervision of the Deputy Commandant for Operations (CG-DCO), serves as Facility Manager for the marine safety programs; coordinates and integrates financial, informational, and human resources; plans, acquires, develops, and allocates resources for development and execution of the Coast Guard's marine safety programs; provides the focal point for all resource issues in support of the Standards and Operations Directorates; and oversees the development and management of the Coast Guard's direct user fee program.

(h) The Judge Advocate General and Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard (CG-094), under the general direction of and in coordination with the General Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, is the senior legal advisor to the Commandant, Vice Commandant, and senior staff officers. The Judge Advocate General advises on all cases and controversies arising under the various authorities of the Coast Guard involving alleged violations of international, maritime, navigation, and vessel inspection laws, or regulations prescribed thereunder and published in this chapter or in 33 CFR chapter I, and reviews appeals to the Commandant from actions derived from these authorities. On completion of such a review, the Judge Advocate General prepares a proposed action for the Commandant's consideration or, in appropriate cases, takes final action on behalf of, and as directed by, the Commandant.

(2) Commandant (CG-5PS) for appeals involving vessel plan review or tonnage measurement issues and for all appeals involving suspension or withdrawal of course approvals, all merchant mariner personnel issues appealed from the National Maritime Center or from an OCMI through a District Commander.

(3) Commandant (CG-5PC) for all appeals regarding the documentation of a vessel under part 67 or part 68 of this title. All appeals regarding the documentation of a vessel under part 67 or part 68 of this title must be addressed to Commandant (CG-5PC), Attn: Director of Inspections and Compliance, U.S. Coast Guard Stop 7501, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20593-7501, and a copy of each such appeal must be sent to the National Vessel Documentation Center, 792 T J Jackson Drive; Falling Waters, WV 25419;

(j) Any decision made by the Commandant, or by the Deputy Commandant for Operations (DCO-D), or by the Assistant Commandant for Prevention Policy (CG-5P), or by a Director or an office chief pursuant to authority delegated by the Commandant is final agency action on the appeal.

§ 1.03-40 [Amended]7. In § 1.03-40, remove the words “Director of Inspections and Compliance (CG-5PC)” wherever they appear and add, in their place, the words “Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards (CG-5PS)”.PART 10—MERCHANT MARINER CREDENTIAL8. The authority citation for part 10 continues to read as follows:Authority:

§ 10.103 [Amended]9. In § 10.103(a), remove the words “Commandant (CG-OES-1), Attn: Marine Personnel Qualifications Division” and add, in their place, the words “Office of Merchant Mariner Credentialing (CG-MMC)”, and remove the numbers “202-372-1405” and add, in their place, the numbers “202-372-1492”.§ 10.408 [Amended]10. In § 10.408(c)(2), remove the letters “CG-CVC” and add, in its place, the letters “CG-MMC”.PART 11—REQUIREMENTS FOR OFFICER ENDORSEMENTS11. The authority citation for part 11 continues to read as follows:Authority:

(a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All approved material is available for inspection at the Coast Guard, Office of Merchant Mariner Credentialing (CG-MMC), U.S. Coast Guard, Stop 7509, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20593-7509, 202-372-1492, and is available from the sources listed below. It is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030 or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

PART 12—REQUIREMENTS FOR RATING ENDORSEMENTS13. The authority citation for part 12 continues to read as follows:Authority:

(a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All approved material is available for inspection at the Coast Guard, Office of Merchant Mariner Credentialing (CG-MMC), U.S. Coast Guard, Stop 7509, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20593-7509, and is available from the sources listed below. It is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030 or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

PART 13—CERTIFICATION OF TANKERMEN15. The authority citation for part 13 continues to read as follows:Authority:

(a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All approved material is available for inspection at the Coast Guard, Office of Merchant Mariner Credentialing (CG-MMC), U.S. Coast Guard, Stop 7509, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20593-7509, 202-372-1492, and is available from the sources listed below. It is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030 or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

PART 15—MANNING REQUIREMENTS17. The authority citation for part 15 continues to read as follows:Authority:

(a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All approved material is available for inspection at the Coast Guard, Office of Merchant Mariner Credentialing (CG-MMC), U.S. Coast Guard, Stop 7509, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20593-7509, 202-372-1492, and is available from the sources listed below. It is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030 or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

A petition for rulemaking was filed by America 51, L.P. (America 51), the licensee of KPPX-TV, channel 51, Tolleson, Arizona, requesting the substitution of channel 31 for channel 51 at Tolleson. America 51 filed comments reaffirming its interest in the proposed channel substitution and stated that if the proposal is granted, it will promptly file an application for the facilities specified in the rulemaking petition and construct the station. America 51 asserts that adopting the proposed channel substitution would serve the public interest because it would remove any potential interference with authorized wireless operations in the Lower 700 MHz A Block adjacent to channel 51 in the Phoenix, Arizona market. In addition, America 51 agrees that KPPX-TV will be protected in the incentive auction at its channel 51 operating parameters even after its move to channel 31, and recognizes that as a result of repacking during the incentive auction, it may be required to move from channel 31.

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MB Docket No. 16-93, adopted June 28, 2016, and released June 28, 2016. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. This document will also be available via ECFS (http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/). To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

This document does not contain information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding.

The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

In this Declaratory Ruling, the Commission determined that the Spectrum Act's reimbursement mandate encompasses “costs reasonably incurred” prior to the close of the auction that otherwise are eligible for reimbursement.

DATES:

This Declaratory Ruling is effective July 6, 2016. This Declaratory Ruling was applicable upon release by the Commission, April 18, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Pamela Gallant, 202-418-0614.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Spectrum Act requires the Commission to reimburse broadcast television licensees and multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs), respectively, for “costs reasonably incurred” in relocating to new channels assigned in the repacking process and in order to continue to carry the signals of stations relocating to new channels. In the Incentive Auction R&O, the Commission established a process that requires eligible entities seeking reimbursement to provide an estimate of their eligible costs following the close of the forward auction and the release of the Channel Reassignment PN. The Commission did not address in the Incentive Auction R&O whether pre-auction expenses are eligible for reimbursement. Interested parties asked for clarification whether expenses incurred before the auction closes and the repacking results are announced are eligible for reimbursement, explaining that uncertainty regarding this issue discourages advance work that could be performed to expedite the post-auction transition for stations that are reassigned to new channels. In this Declaratory Ruling, the Commission interprets the statutory reimbursement mandate to include “costs reasonably incurred” before and during the auction that otherwise are eligible for reimbursement. Consistent with the Spectrum Act, only stations that ultimately are reassigned to a new channel in their pre-auction band in the repacking process will be eligible for reimbursement of expenses incurred before and during the auction, which will be subject to the same reimbursement process as post-auction expenses. This document does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). The Commission will not send a copy of this Declaratory Ruling to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) because no rules are being adopted by the Commission.

The General Services Administration (GSA) is amending the General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAM) to make revisions made to GSAR Case 2010-G511—Federal Supply Schedules: Purchasing by Non-Federal Entities, which was published in the Federal Register on June 6, 2016.

GSA published a document in the Federal Register at 81 FR 36425, on June 6, 2016 that was effective on July 6, 2016. Since these changes were published, further revisions were made to the affected regulations by a document posted in the Federal Register at 81 FR 41103 that was effective on June 23, 2016. Therefore, conforming changes are being made to correct 48 CFR parts 538 and 552.

(2) 552.238-75, Price Reductions. Use Alternate I for Federal Supply Schedules with Transactional Data Reporting requirements. This alternate clause is used when vendors agree to include clause 552.238-74 Alternate I in the contract.

FMCSA corrects an error in its June 7, 2016, final rule “Driving of Commercial Motor Vehicles: Use of Seat Belts.” The amendatory language in the final rule inadvertently limited the applicability of the requirement for drivers to use their seat belts to operators of property-carrying vehicles. Today's correction fixes the error such that drivers of passenger-carrying vehicles will continue to be required to wear their seat belts.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration published a document in the Federal Register of June 7, 2016 (81 FR 36474). In FR Doc. 2016-13099, published in the Federal Register of June 7, 2016, (81 FR 36474), § 392.16(a) was amended to inadvertently include the phrase “property-carrying.” This correction removes the phrase “property-carrying.”.

§ 392.16 [Corrected]In rule FR Doc. 2016-13099, published on June 7, 2016 (81 FR 36474) make the following correction. On page 36479, in the third column, remove the words “property-carrying” from where it appears twice in paragraph (a) of § 392.16.Issued on: June 28, 2016.Larry W. Minor,Associate Administrator for Policy.[FR Doc. 2016-15941 Filed 7-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-PDEPARTMENT OF COMMERCENational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration50 CFR Part 648[Docket No. 151210999-6348-02]RIN 0648-XE709Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery; Closure of the Mid-Atlantic Access Area to General Category Individual Fishing Quota Scallop VesselsAGENCY:

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION:

Temporary rule; closure.

SUMMARY:

NMFS announces that the Mid-Atlantic Scallop Access Area will close to Limited Access General Category Individual Fishing Quota scallop vessels for the remainder of the 2016 fishing year as of the effective date below. After the effective date, no vessel issued a Limited Access General Category Individual Fishing Quota permit may fish for, possess, or land scallops from the Mid-Atlantic Scallop Access Area. Regulations require this action once it is projected that 100 percent of trips allocated to the Limited Access General Category Individual Fishing Quota scallop vessels for the Mid-Atlantic Scallop Access Area will be taken.

DATES:

Effective 0001 hr local time, July 4, 2016, through February 28, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Shannah Jaburek, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 282-8456.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The reader can find regulations governing fishing activity in the Sea Scallop Access Areas in 50 CFR 648.59 and 648.60. These regulations authorize vessels issued a valid Limited Access General Category (LAGC) Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) scallop permit to fish in the Mid-Atlantic Scallop Access Area under specific conditions, including a total of 2,068 trips that may be taken by LAGC IFQ vessels during the 2016 fishing year. Section 648.60(g)(3)(iii) requires the Mid-Atlantic Scallop Access Area to be closed to LAGC IFQ permitted vessels for the remainder of the fishing year once the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Administrator determines that the allowed number of trips for fishing year 2016 are projected to be taken.

Based on trip declarations by LAGC IFQ scallop vessels fishing in the Mid-Atlantic Scallop Access Area, and analysis of fishing effort, NMFS projects that 2,068 trips will be taken as of July 4, 2016. Therefore, in accordance with § 648.60(g)(3)(iii), NMFS is closing the Mid-Atlantic Scallop Access Area is closed to all LAGC IFQ scallop vessels as of July 4, 2016. No vessel issued an LAGC IFQ permit may fish for, possess, or land scallops in or from the Mid-Atlantic Scallop Access Area after 0001 local time, July 4, 2016. Any LAGC IFQ vessel that has declared into the Mid-Atlantic Access Area scallop fishery, complied with all trip notification and observer requirements, and crossed the vessel monitoring system demarcation line on the way to the area before 0001, July 4, 2016, may complete its trip. This closure is in effect for the remainder of the 2016 scallop fishing year.

Classification

This action is required by 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

NMFS finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment because it would be contrary to the public interest and impracticable. The Mid-Atlantic Access Area opened for the 2016 fishing year on April 1, 2016. The regulations at § 648.60(g)(3)(iii) require this closure to ensure that LAGC IFQ scallop vessels do not take more than their allocated number of trips in the Mid-Atlantic Scallop Access Area. The projections of the date on which the LAGC IFQ fleet will have taken all of its allocated trips in an Access Area become apparent only as trips into the area occur on a real-time basis and as activity trends begin to appear. As a result, NMFS can only make an accurate projection very close in time to when the fleet has taken all of its trips. In order to propose a closure for purposes of receiving prior public comment, NMFS would need to make a projection based on very little information, which would result in a closure too early or too late. To allow LAGC IFQ scallop vessels to continue to take trips in the Mid-Atlantic Scallop Access Area during the period necessary to publish and receive comments on a proposed rule would likely result in vessels taking much more than the allowed number of trips in the Mid-Atlantic Scallop Access Area. Excessive trips and harvest from the Mid-Atlantic Scallop Access Area would result in excessive fishing effort in the area, where effort controls are critical, thereby undermining conservation objectives of the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan and requiring more restrictive future management measures. Also, the public had prior notice and full opportunity to comment on this closure process when we put these provisions in place. Current regulations prohibit LAGC IFQ scallop vessels from fishing for, possessing, or landing scallops from this area after the effective date of this notification published in the Federal Register. NMFS further finds, pursuant to 5 U.S.C 553(d)(3), good cause to waive the 30-day delayed effectiveness period for the reasons stated above.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is seeking additional input from the public, licensees, Agreement States, non-Agreement States, and other stakeholders on the need for potential rulemaking to address prompt remediation of residual radioactivity during the operational phase at licensed material sites and nuclear reactors. The NRC has not initiated a rulemaking, but is gathering information and seeking stakeholder input on this subject for developing a recommendation to the Commission regarding the need for further rulemaking. To aid in this process, the NRC is requesting comments on the issues discussed in Section II, “Specific Questions,” in the Supplementary Information section of this document. Additionally, the NRC will hold a public Webinar and host a public meeting to facilitate the public's and other stakeholders' understanding of these issues and the submission of comments.

DATES:

The public Webinar and meeting will be held in Rockville, Maryland on July 11, 2016, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. (EDT) to solicit public and stakeholder feedback. Submit comments on the issues discussed in this document by August 22, 2016. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comment by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):

• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2011-0162. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

The NRC published the Decommissioning Planning Rule (DPR) in 2011 (76 FR 33512; June 17, 2011) with an effective date of December 17, 2012. The DPR applies to the operational phase of a licensed facility, and requires licensees to operate in a way to minimize spills, leaks, and other unplanned releases of radioactive contaminants into the environment. It also requires licensees to check periodically for radiological contamination throughout the site, including subsurface soil and groundwater. The DPR does not have a mandatory requirement for licensees to conduct radiological remediation during operation. In the Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM), SRM-SECY-07-0177—Proposed Rule: Decommissioning Planning (10 CFR parts 20, 30, 40, 50, 70, and 72; RIN: 3150-AH45) (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML073440549) that approved the proposed DPR, the Commission directed the staff to “make further improvements to the decommissioning planning process by addressing remediation of residual radioactivity during the operational phase with the objective of avoiding complex decommissioning challenges that can lead to legacy sites.” To assist in this process, the NRC staff held a public Webinar on July 25, 2011, during which input on a draft regulatory basis and a set of defined questions concerning a potential rulemaking was obtained from members of the public, licensees, Agreement States, non-Agreement States, and other interested persons. Additionally, interested persons were afforded an opportunity to provide written comments on the same issues (see 76 FR 42074; July 18, 2011). Based upon this input, the NRC staff revised its Draft Regulatory Basis (ADAMS Accession No. ML13109A281).

Subsequently, in SRM-SECY-12-0046—Options for Revising the Regulatory Approach to Groundwater Protection (ADAMS Accession No. ML121450704), the Commission directed the staff to continue the current regulatory approach for groundwater protection, including the recently imposed requirements contained in the DPR, and to solicit public comments on the technical basis for a proposed prompt remediation rule. The Commission also directed the staff to evaluate the pros and cons of moving forward with a proposed prompt remediation rulemaking, including the staff's initial analysis of whether the cost/benefit analysis satisfies the backfit requirements. The staff conducted an additional public meeting and Webinar on June 4, 2013 (see 78 FR 33008; June 3, 2013), and subsequently evaluated stakeholder comments. From this information, the staff identified the following three options for potential rulemaking on prompt remediation during the operational phase of facility life: (1) Proceed with rulemaking; (2) do not proceed with rulemaking; or (3) collect 2 years of information from implementation of the DPR before making a staff recommendation for potential rulemaking.

As a result of the ongoing discussions regarding the need for a prompt remediation regulation, SRM-SECY-13-0108—Staff Recommendations for Addressing Remediation of Residual Radioactivity During Operations (ADAMS Accession No. ML13354B759), instructed the staff to “collect 2 years of additional data from the implementation of the DPR. After collection and evaluation of the data and engaging stakeholders in a public meeting focused on operational experience from implementation of the Decommissioning Planning Rule, the staff should provide to the Commission a paper with the staff's recommendation for addressing remediation of residual radioactivity at licensed facilities during the operational phase of the facility.” Now that the data collection period on the implementation of the DPR has come to a close, the NRC staff is collecting supplementary input from the public and other interested stakeholders to inform the staff's recommendation to the Commission regarding the need for additional rulemaking requiring prompt remediation during operation.

II. Specific Questions

Currently, there are no NRC regulations that require licensees to promptly remediate radiological contamination. To enhance stakeholder engagement in making a recommendation to the Commission regarding whether additional rulemaking in this area is warranted, the staff is holding a Webinar, hosting a public meeting, and requesting feedback on the following questions to facilitate discussion with, and solicit input from, interested stakeholders.

The NRC has asked many of the following questions before, and received some public input. Several commenters stated that an additional rule for prompt remediation is not necessary; and that issues can be addressed either by existing rules or by site-specific action. Others stated the proposed thresholds are not appropriate and that interim remediation is not cost effective. Those who supported an additional rule pointed to cases where there is significant contamination, and drew parallels to other regulations that require early cleanup, such as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The NRC is now seeking further stakeholder input on these questions given the approximately 3 years that have passed since implementation of the DPR:

1. Given the information on site radiological contamination gained as a result of the implementation of the Decommissioning Planning Rule, should the NRC proceed with additional rulemaking to address remediation of residual radioactivity during the operational phase? Why or why not?

2. Based on the information on site contamination obtained from facilities that have entered decommissioning, should the NRC proceed with additional rulemaking to address remediation of residual radioactivity during the operational phase? Why or why not?

3. If the NRC does implement a rule that requires prompt remediation of radioactive spills and leaks, what concentration, dose limits, or other threshold limits should trigger prompt remediation? Should the thresholds differ for soil versus groundwater contamination?

4. Should the NRC allow licensees to justify delaying remediation under certain conditions when the contaminant level exceeds the threshold limit? If yes, then what conditions should be used to justify a delayed remediation?

5. Should factors such as safety, operational impact, and cost be a basis for delaying remediation?

6. If the NRC implements a rule that allows licensees to analyze residual radioactivity to justify delaying remediation, then what should the licensee's analysis cover? For example, what kind of dose assessment, risk-assessments, and/or cost-benefit analyses should be performed to justify delayed remediation? What other types of analyses are relevant to this process?

7. If the NRC implements a rule that allows licensees to analyze residual radioactivity to justify delaying remediation, what role should the cost of prompt remediation versus remediation at the time of decommissioning play in the analysis? What are the overall costs and benefits of prompt remediation of residual radioactivity?

8. If the NRC implements a rule that allows licensees to analyze residual radioactivity to justify delaying remediation, what standards or criteria should a licensee use to demonstrate to the NRC that a sufficient justification to delay remediation has been met?

9. Are there any other alternatives beyond those discussed in the Draft Regulatory Basis document that the NRC should have considered to address prompt remediation?

10. What other issues should the NRC staff consider in developing a technical basis for a potential rulemaking to address prompt remediation of residual radioactivity during site operation?

III. Public Webinar

To facilitate the understanding of the public and other stakeholders of these issues and the submission of comments, the NRC staff has scheduled a public Webinar for July 11, 2016, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. (EDT). Webinar participants will be able to view the presentation slides prepared by the NRC and electronically submit comments over the Internet. Participants must register to participate in the Webinar. Registration information may be found in the meeting notice (ADAMS Accession No. ML16179A220). The meeting notice can also be accessed through the NRC's public Web site under the heading for Public Meetings; see Web page http://meetings.nrc.gov/pmns/mtg. Those who are unable to participate via Webinar may also participate via teleconference. For details on how to participate via teleconference, please contact Marlayna Vaaler; telephone: 301-415-3178; email: Marlayna.Vaaler@nrc.gov.

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2011-0162 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may access information related to this document, which the NRC possesses and is publicly available, by any of the following methods:

• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may access publicly available documents online in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced in this document (if that document is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a document is referenced.

Please include Docket ID NRC-2011-0162 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.

The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in you comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.

The Importer Security Filing and Additional Carrier Requirements regulations were implemented in 2009 as an interim final rule to improve CBP's ability to identify high-risk shipments in order to prevent smuggling and improve cargo safety and security. These regulations require certain cargo information to be submitted to CBP via an Importer Security Filing (ISF) before the cargo is loaded on a vessel that is destined to the United States. These regulations fulfill the requirements of section 203 of the SAFE Port Act of 2006 and section 343 of the Trade Act of 2002, as amended by the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002. The ISF Importer is the party that is required to file the ISF. This notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposes to expand the definition of ISF Importer for certain types of shipments to ensure that the party that has the best access to the required information will be the party that is responsible for filing the ISF.

Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this rulemaking. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the “Public Participation” heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Submitted comments may also be inspected during regular business days between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. at the Office of International Trade, Regulations and Rulings, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177. Arrangements to inspect submitted comments should be made in advance by calling Mr. Joseph Clark at (202) 325-0118.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:Background

After the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, CBP amended its regulations to require vessel carriers to electronically submit certain advance cargo information, including cargo declarations, to CBP no later than 24 hours before the cargo is laden aboard a vessel at a foreign port. See 19 CFR 4.7 and 4.7a. The rule was published in the Federal Register (67 FR 66318) on October 31, 2002. Its purpose was to enable CBP to identify high-risk cargo before the vessel arrived in the United States.

Section 203 of the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-347, 120 Stat. 1884 (SAFE Port Act)) directed the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting through the Commissioner of CBP, to promulgate regulations to “require the electronic transmission to the Department [of Homeland Security] of additional data elements for improved high-risk targeting, including appropriate security elements of entry data, as determined by the Secretary, to be provided as advanced information with respect to cargo destined for importation into the United States prior to loading of such cargo on vessels at foreign seaports.” Pursuant to this Act, and section 343(a) of the Trade Act of 2002 (19 U.S.C. 2071 note), CBP published an NPRM in the Federal Register on January 2, 2008 (73 FR 90), proposing to require importers and carriers to submit additional information pertaining to maritime cargo before the cargo is loaded on a vessel that is destined to the United States. The trade gave the proposed rule the shorthand name “10 + 2”, which references the number of advance data elements CBP was proposing to collect. Importers, described in the proposed rule as Importer Security Filing Importers, would generally be required to submit 10 additional data elements (the 10 of “10 + 2”). Carriers would generally be required to submit two additional data elements (the 2 of “10 + 2”).

On November 25, 2008, CBP published an interim final rule and solicitation of comments in the Federal Register (73 FR 71730, CBP Decision 08-46). The interim final rule was effective on January 26, 2009. However, a delayed compliance period of at least 12 months was provided to allow industry sufficient time to comply with the new requirements.

The interim final rule finalized most of the provisions of the NPRM, including all the provisions relating to the carrier requirements. The only portions of the NPRM that were not finalized were the six importer data elements for which CBP provided some flexibility regarding the time and/or manner of compliance. CBP solicited public comments on the flexibilities provided. CBP also invited comments on the revised Regulatory Assessment and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. CBP has not yet published a final rule addressing the flexibilities and the Regulatory Assessment and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.

I. Summary of ISF Importer Requirements

The interim final rule added a new part 149 to the CBP regulations, entitled Importer Security Filing. The Importer Security Filing regulations require ISF Importers, as defined in 19 CFR 149.1, to transmit an ISF to CBP, for cargo other than foreign cargo remaining on board (FROB), no later than 24 hours before cargo is laden aboard a vessel destined to the United States. The transmission of the ISF filing for FROB is required any time prior to lading.

ISF Importers, or their agents, must submit 10 data elements to CBP for shipments consisting of goods intended to be entered into the United States and goods intended to be delivered to a foreign trade zone (FTZ). See 19 CFR 149.3(a). ISF Importers, or their agents, must submit five data elements to CBP for shipments consisting entirely of FROB and shipments consisting entirely of goods intended to be transported as Immediate Exportation (IE) or Transportation and Exportation (T&E) in-bond shipments. See 19 CFR 149.3(b).

II. Proposed Amendment

This rulemaking proposes to expand the definition of the Importer Security Filing (ISF) Importer. Currently, an ISF Importer is generally defined in 19 CFR 149.1 as the party causing goods to arrive within the limits of a port in the United States by vessel.

The regulation provides that generally the ISF Importer is the goods' owner, purchaser, consignee, or agent such as a licensed customs broker. However, the regulation limits the definition of ISF Importer to certain named parties for foreign cargo remaining on board (FROB), immediate exportation (IE), and transportation and exportation (T&E) in-bond shipments, and for merchandise being entered into a foreign trade zone (FTZ). For FROB cargo, the regulation provides that the ISF Importer is the carrier; for IE and T&E in-bond shipments, and goods to be delivered to an FTZ, the regulation provides that the ISF Importer is the party filing the IE, T&E, or FTZ documentation.

Based on input from the trade as well as CBP's analysis, CBP has concluded that these limitations do not reflect commercial reality and, in some cases, designate a party as the ISF Importer even though that party has no commercial interest in the shipment and limited access to the ISF data. Therefore, as explained below, CBP is proposing to expand the definition of ISF Importer for FROB cargo, for IE and T&E shipments and for goods to be delivered to a FTZ.

1. Foreign Cargo Remaining on Board (FROB)

Under the current definition, the ISF Importer for FROB shipments is the carrier. The interim final rule clarified that the carrier means the international carrier arriving in the United States, i.e., vessel operating carrier. See 73 FR 71743. The rationale for requiring the vessel operating carrier to provide the ISF for FROB shipments was that ultimately it is the vessel operating carrier that decides to transport the cargo to the United States.

There is still much debate within the shipping community about who should be the ISF importer for FROB shipments. This debate stems from the relationship between vessel operating carriers and non-vessel operating common carriers (NVOCCs).1 When a party wants to ship goods on a vessel, the party can either book the shipment directly with the vessel operating carrier or it can use an NVOCC who acts as an intermediary between the party shipping the goods and the vessel operating carrier.

1 A non-vessel operating common carrier (NVOCC) means a common carrier that does not operate the vessels by which the ocean transportation is provided, and is a shipper in its relationship with an ocean common carrier. See 19 CFR 4.7(b)(3)(ii).

When a party books a FROB shipment directly with a vessel operating carrier, the vessel operating carrier has direct access to the required ISF data and is able to file the ISF information with CBP. However, when a party uses an NVOCC, the vessel operating carrier frequently does not have access to the required ISF data elements. This is because the NVOCC may not want to share confidential business information with the vessel operating carrier, a potential competitor.

However, under the current definition of ISF Importer, the vessel operating carrier is always the ISF Importer for FROB shipments, even though it may not have access to the required information. In response to comments to the interim final rule, CBP addressed the issue of the NVOCC not sharing necessary ISF information with the vessel operating carrier by clarifying that the NVOCC can submit the ISF directly to CBP, if it does so as the vessel operating carrier's agent. See 73 FR 71744. Based on CBP's experience with the ISF program, CBP has concluded that the procedure of having the NVOCC act as the agent of the vessel operating carrier for FROB shipments is not effective. The current requirement has not facilitated the sharing of necessary ISF information between NVOCCs and vessel operating carriers and has not resulted in the filing of accurate information. Rather, this procedure has resulted in unclear lines of responsibility and has hampered CBP's enforcement of the ISF requirements.

In an effort to increase compliance and to ensure that the party that has direct access to ISF information is the party responsible for submitting the ISF to CBP, CBP is proposing to broaden the definition of an ISF Importer for FROB shipments to include NVOCCs. This change is consistent with the requirement of the SAFE Port Act, which provides that a requirement to provide information will be imposed on the party most likely to have direct knowledge of that information.2

2 The SAFE Port Act requires CBP to follow the parameters listed in the Trade Act of 2002, which provides that “the requirement to provide particular information shall be imposed on the party most likely to have direct knowledge of that information. Where requiring information from the party with direct knowledge of that information is not practicable, the regulations shall take into account how, under ordinary commercial practices, information is acquired by the party on which the requirement is imposed, and whether and how such party is able to verify the information. Where information is not reasonably verifiable by the party on which a requirement is imposed, the regulations shall permit that party to transmit information on the basis of what it reasonably believes to be true.”

Broadening the definition of ISF Importer to include NVOCCs is also consistent with the general definition that the ISF Importer means the party causing the goods to arrive within the limits of a port in the United States by vessel. The NVOCC acts as the party booking the shipment aboard the carrier and typically has advance knowledge of the voyage's itinerary, i.e., whether the vessel will enter a U.S. port. By booking the shipment, the NVOCC is the party causing the goods to arrive in the United States. In these instances, not only will the NVOCC be the party most able to obtain the required ISF information, but it will be the party that causes the goods to arrive within the limits of a port in the United States as FROB cargo.

In some circumstances, the vessel operating carrier would be the party that causes the goods to arrive in the United States despite the NVOCC having booked the shipment. An example would be when an NVOCC books a shipment not initially scheduled to arrive in the United States, but the vessel is diverted to the United States by the vessel operating carrier. If the cargo remains on board the vessel at the U.S. port and is not discharged until it arrives at the originally scheduled foreign destination port, this would create FROB cargo. In this situation, the vessel operating carrier would be the party that caused the cargo to arrive in the United States and thus the party responsible for filing the ISF.

2. IE, T&E, and FTZ Cargo

As provided in 19 CFR 149.1(a), the ISF Importer for IE and T&E in-bond shipments and for shipments of goods to be delivered to an FTZ is the party that files the IE, T&E, or FTZ documentation with CBP. CBP believes that this definition needs to be broadened because often the party responsible for filing the ISF did not cause the goods to arrive within the limits of a port in the United States, but is a commercially disinterested party at the time of filing and/or may not have access to the required ISF data.

IE and T&E entries are frequently not filed until after the cargo has arrived within limits of a port in the United States. Therefore, there is not yet a party that files the IE or T&E documentation 24 hours prior to lading. In some cases, the party that will be responsible for filing the ISF has not yet been identified. In addition, in some cases, the party that will file the IE or T&E documentation has no commercial interest in the underlying merchandise and that party is a commercially disinterested party 24 hours prior to lading. In these cases, the party filing the IE or T&E entries with CBP did not cause the goods to arrive within the limits of a port in the United States and is not the party most likely to have direct knowledge of the required information. To address this problem, the goods' owner, purchaser, consignee, or agent such as a licensed customs broker will commonly file the ISF-10 required for shipments intended to be entered into the United States, which consists of 10 data elements, as opposed to the ISF-5 required for IE and T&E shipments, which consists of five data elements.

Similarly, for goods being entered into an FTZ, the party filing the FTZ documentation is frequently a commercially disinterested party and/or is not the party most able to obtain the required information. For example, it is common for the FTZ operator to file the FTZ documentation with CBP. However, the FTZ operator is commonly not the party causing the goods to enter the limits of the port in the United States and is a commercially disinterested party 24 hours prior to lading. As a result, the party responsible for filing the ISF is not the party most likely to have direct knowledge of the required information.

To address these issues, CBP is proposing to expand the definition of ISF Importer for IE and T&E in-bond shipments, and for goods to be delivered to an FTZ, to also include the goods' owner, purchaser, consignee, or agent such as a licensed customs broker. These are the same parties that are currently included within the definition of ISF Importer for all shipments other than FROB, IE and T&E in-bond shipments, and goods to be delivered to a FTZ. By broadening the definition to include these parties, the responsibility to file the ISF for IE, T&E, and FTZ shipments will be with the party causing the goods to enter the limits of a port in the United States and most likely to have access to the required ISF information and not with a commercially disinterested party.

III. Regulatory AnalysisA. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This proposed rule is a “significant regulatory action,” although not an economically significant regulatory action, under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget has reviewed this proposed regulation.

Under current regulations, the party required to submit ISF is the party causing the goods to enter the limits of a port in the United States. However, the regulation limits the definition for FROB, IE, and T&E shipments as well as for merchandise being entered into a FTZ to certain named parties. Based on input from the trade as well as CBP's analysis, CBP has concluded that these limitations do not reflect commercial reality and, in some cases, designate a party as the ISF Importer even though that party has no commercial interest in the shipment and limited access to the ISF data. In some cases, the party responsible may not even be involved in the importation at the time the ISF must be filed. This causes confusion in the trade as to who is responsible for filing the ISF and raises confidentiality concerns as sometimes the private party with the information gives the information to the ISF importer who then sends it to CBP. Therefore, CBP is proposing to expand the definition of ISF Importer for FROB cargo, for IE and T&E shipments and for goods to be delivered to a FTZ. This change is consistent with the requirement of the SAFE Port Act, which provides that the requirement to file the ISF will be imposed on the party most likely to have direct knowledge of that information.

This proposed rule would modify the definition of the ISF Importer for FROB cargo, for IE and T&E shipments, and for goods to be delivered to a FTZ. The current definition causes confusion and confidentiality concerns. The current ISF Importer for FROB shipments is the vessel operating carrier. In cases where the shipper uses an intermediary, i.e., NVOCC, the vessel operating carrier does not have access to certain of the required elements for confidentiality reasons—only the intermediary has this information. In most cases, the NVOCC chooses to file this information directly to CBP, sidestepping the confidentiality concerns, but the legal burden is on the vessel operating carrier so some NVOCCs feel pressured to share this information with the carrier. This regulation would define the ISF Importer for FROB cargo as the vessel operating carrier or the NVOCC. Under this regulation, the NVOCC, rather than the vessel operating carrier, would be the ISF Importer if it is the party in possession of the required information.

Likewise, the definition of ISF Importer causes confusion for IE and T&E cargo. The ISF Importer in these cases is the filer of the IE or T&E documentation. This causes confusion because the IE or T&E documentation often is not created until the cargo arrives in the United States. By contrast, ISF information must be submitted at least 24 hours prior to lading. The proposed rule would expand the definition of ISF Importer for IE and T&E in-bond shipments to also include the goods' owner, purchaser, consignee, or agent such as a licensed customs broker. The proposed rule would also make a similar change to the definition of the ISF Importer of FTZ cargo. With this change, the ISF Importer will be a party with a bona fide interest in the commercial shipment and access to the required data.

The modification of the definition of ISF Importer will simply shift the legal responsibility in some cases for filing the ISF from one party to another for a subset of the total cargo (FROB; IE and T&E; and FTZ cargo). For IE, T&E, and FTZ cargo, the party who is currently required to file the data may not yet even be involved in the transaction at the time the data must be submitted. In these cases another party that has the data such as the owner, purchaser, consignee, or agent often files the data, though they are not legally obligated to file it. Under this proposed rule, these parties who have the data will be included in the definition of the party responsible for filing the data. Since these parties are generally the ones currently submitting this data to CBP, this change will have no significant impact. In some rare instances, this proposed rule may shift the burden of filing from one party to another. For example, since the party currently responsible for filing may not be involved in the transaction at the time the data must be submitted, it could be one of several parties (e.g., the owner, purchaser, consignee, or agent) that actually submits the information. Once this proposed rule is in effect, there will be clarity as to which party is responsible, which could change who actually submits the data. In the vast majority of cases, there will be no change in who submits the data, but it is possible that there will be a change. To the extent that there is a change in who actually submits the ISF data, there will be a shift in the time burden to do so from one party to the other. CBP estimates that submitting this information takes 2.19 hours at a cost of $50.14 per hour.3 This loaded wage rate was estimated by multiplying the Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS) 2014 median hourly wage rate for Ship and Boat Captains and Operators ($32.73) by the ratio of BLS' average 2014 total compensation to wages and salaries for Transportation and Material Moving occupations (1.5319), the assumed occupational group for ship and boat captains and operators, to account for non-salary employee benefits.4 5

3 This differs from the estimated wage rate on the most recent supporting statement for this information collection: OMB Control Number 1651-0001, available at: http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=201506-1651-003, which is based on outdated data. We will update the wage rate in this supporting statement the next time the ICR is renewed.

5 The total compensation to wages and salaries ratio is equal to the calculated average of the 2014 quarterly estimates (shown under Mar., June, Sep., Dec.) of the total compensation cost per hour worked for Transportation and Material Moving occupations (26.62) divided by the calculated average of the 2014 quarterly estimates (shown under Mar., June, Sep., Dec.) of wages and salaries cost per hour worked for the same occupation category (17.3775). Source of total compensation to wages and salaries ratio data: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employer Costs for Employee Compensation. Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Historical Listing March 2004—December 2015, “Table 3. Civilian workers, by occupational group: Employer costs per hours worked for employee compensation and costs as a percentage of total compensation, 2004-2015 by Respondent Type: Transportation and material moving occupations.” June 10, 2015. Available at http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ect/sp/ececqrtn.pdf. Accessed June 15, 2015.

Therefore, to the extent this proposed rule shifts the reporting burden from one party to the other, there will be a corresponding shift of $109.81 in opportunity cost per filing. CBP lacks data showing how often there would be a shift in the actual reporting burden as a result of this rule but it believes it to be very small and possibly zero. CBP requests comment on this matter.

For FROB, the ISF Importer must currently either obtain the information from a third party that has the necessary information or ask that the third party file the information directly to CBP. In some cases, the third party shares this information with the ISF Importer, but it usually files the data directly with CBP for confidentiality reasons. Under the proposed regulation, the party that has access to the ISF information would submit it directly to CBP. Since this third party is generally already providing the ISF information through the current ISF Importer or directly to CBP, this rule will not add a significant burden to these entities. As described above, to the extent that this rule shifts the reporting burden from one party to the other, there will be a corresponding shift of $109.81 in opportunity cost per filing. CBP lacks data showing how often there would be a shift in the actual reporting burden as a result of this rule but it believes it to be very small and possibly zero. CBP requests comment on this matter.

This proposed rule benefits all parties by eliminating the confusion surrounding the responsibility for the submission of ISF information. In addition, this rule would significantly reduce confidentiality concerns that may be caused by the current requirements. This rule would ensure the party with the best access to the information is the party who files the information, which will improve the accuracy of the information CBP uses for targeting. Finally, eliminating a step in the transmission process (sending the ISF information from the third party to the current ISF importer) will result in CBP getting the information sooner. Any extra time can be used for more extensive targeting.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

This section examines the impact of the rulemaking on small entities as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act of 1996. A small entity may be a small business (defined as any independently owned and operated business not dominant in its field that qualifies as a small business per the Small Business Act); a small not-for-profit organization; or a small governmental jurisdiction (locality with fewer than 50,000 people).

In the Interim Final Rule establishing the ISF requirements (73 FR 71730; November 25, 2008, CBP Decision 08-46; Docket Number USCBP-2007-0077), CBP concluded that many importers of containerized cargo are small entities. The rule could affect any importer of containerized cargo so it could have an impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This impact, however, is very small. The modification of the definition of ISF Importer will simply shift the legal responsibility in some cases for filing the ISF from one party to another for a subset of the total cargo (FROB; IE and T&E; and FTZ cargo). For IE, T&E, and FTZ cargo, the party who is currently required to file the data may not yet even be involved in the transaction at the time the data must be submitted. In these cases another party such as the owner, purchaser, consignee, or agent often files the data, though they are not legally obligated to file it. Under this proposed rule, these parties will be included in the definition of the party responsible for filing the data. Since these parties are currently submitting this data to CBP, this change will have no significant impact. For FROB, the ISF Importer must currently either obtain the information from a third party that has the necessary information or ask that the third party file the information directly to CBP. In some cases, the third party shares this information with the ISF Importer, but it usually files the data directly with CBP for confidentiality reasons. Under the proposed regulation, CBP is expanding the definition of ISF Importer so that the party that has access to the ISF information would submit it directly to CBP as the ISF Importer. Since this third party is already providing the ISF information through the current ISF Importer or directly to CBP, this proposed rule will not add a significant burden to these entities.

For these reasons, CBP certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

Title II of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This proposed rule is exempt from these requirements under 2 U.S.C. 1503 (Exclusions) which states that UMRA “shall not apply to any provision in a bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report before Congress and any provision in a proposed or final Federal regulation that is necessary for the national security or the ratification or implementation of international treaty obligations.”

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), an agency may not conduct, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid control number assigned by OMB. The collections of information related to this NPRM are approved by OMB under collection 1651-0001.

(a) Importer Security Filing Importer. For purposes of this part, Importer Security Filing Importer (ISF Importer) means the party causing goods to arrive within the limits of a port in the United States by vessel. For shipments other than foreign cargo remaining on board (FROB), the ISF Importer will be the goods' owner, purchaser, consignee, or agent such as a licensed customs broker. For IE and T&E in-bond shipments, and goods to be delivered to an FTZ, the ISF Importer may also be the party filing the IE, T&E, or FTZ documentation. For FROB cargo, the ISF Importer will be the carrier or the non-vessel operating common carrier.

The Postal Service is revising its pending proposal to amend Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM®), to include a newly proposed measurement and assessment procedure for evaluating address quality for mailers who enter eligible letter- and flat-size pieces of First-Class Mail® (FCM) and Standard Mail® that meet the requirements for Basic or Full-Service mailings.

DATES:

Submit comments on or before August 5, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

Mail or deliver written comments to the manager, Product Classification, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Room 4446, Washington, DC 20260-5015. If sending comments by email, include the name and address of the commenter and send to Product;Classification@usps.gov, with a subject line of “Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process.” Faxed comments are not accepted.

You may inspect and photocopy all written comments, by appointment only, at USPS® Headquarters Library, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW., 11th Floor North, Washington, DC 20260. These records are available for review on Monday through Friday, 9 a.m.-4 p.m., by calling 202-268-2906.

On December 23, 2014, the Postal Service published a notice of proposed rulemaking (79 FR 76930-76931) to add a process for measuring address quality.

From that proposed rule, the mailing industry provided many insightful and valuable comments (outlined later in this document) to the Postal Service and requested that a revised proposed rule be published. Therefore, we are renaming and revising our original proposal, and publishing it with a request for additional comments. This proposed rulemaking is subject to both Postal Service management and Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) approvals.

The Postal Service continues to look for opportunities to work with mailers to improve address quality and reduce undeliverable-as-addressed (UAA) mail. We have developed a newly proposed procedure, the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process, to measure address quality pertaining to move-related changes. This proposed process will allow the Postal Service to provide valuable feedback to mailers who enter eligible letter- and flat-size pieces of FCM and Standard Mail that meet the requirements for Basic or Full-Service mailings.

The Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process will utilize a scorecard for mailers that conveys information on address hygiene as well as Move Update quality. The scorecard provides mailers with change-of-address (COA) data as well as details about mailpieces that are UAA.

Presently, one of the benefits of the Full-Service Intelligent Mail® program is free Address Change Service (ACSTM) for mailpieces prepared in accordance with Full-Service requirements. In order to further encourage the adoption of Full-Service and to increase the number of mailers that receive address quality information, the Postal Service is proposing to extend free ACS to mailers who enter qualifying Basic automation and non-automation mailpieces that meet the criteria of the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process and to mailers that meet a Full-Service threshold of 95 percent along with other requirements, which are outlined later in this document.

Today, some mailers who enter Periodicals could potentially be charged for manual address correction notices on mailpieces using a Full-Service ACS Service Type IDentifier (STID). The Postal Service is proposing that mailers who enter Full-Service Periodicals mailings using a Full-Service ACS STID will not be required to receive or pay for manual address correction notices unless they are requested. Although mailers who enter Periodicals will be provided with address quality data, these mailpieces will not be subject to the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process.

Terms

To further clarify this document, several terms are defined below:

99 Percent Accurate Method: Mailers who can demonstrate that their internal list management maintains address quality at 99 percent or greater accuracy for changes of address may be authorized to comply with the Move Update standard through the 99 Percent Accurate Method. The 99 Percent Accurate test is a computer-based process that performs Postal Service ZIP + 4® coding and change-of-address processing utilizing the customer's file as input. The 99 Percent Accurate test is accomplished by submitting the mailer's address file(s) to the Postal Service for processing.

Commercial Mailings: The Postal Service offers lower prices for business mailings, because mailers perform some of the work that would otherwise have to be done by the Postal Service (for example, sorting the mail by ZIP CodeTM or transporting the mail to a destination postal facility). Everyone benefits from “work-sharing.” Mailers make an investment in time and technology while paying less postage, and the Postal Service's costs are reduced, while mail is expedited through the system. Among other requirements, commercial mailings must comply with the Move Update standard as outlined in the DMM so that UAA mail is minimized.

eDoc Submitter: The electronic documentation (eDoc) Submitter is determined using the Customer Registration IDentifier (CRID) number that is used to upload the eDoc to the Postal Service for processing. The eDoc submitter most often is the Mail Preparer, but can also be the Mail Owner. All results of Address Quality Measurement will be displayed on the eDoc Submitter and Mail Owner scorecards; however, any additional postage assessments will be presented to the eDoc submitter.

Legal Restraint: Mailers of First-Class Mail and First-Class Package Service pieces who assert they are restricted by law from incorporating Postal Service COA information onto their mailpieces without permission from addressees may request Postal Service approval to meet their Move Update standard using the Legal Restraint method. Such mailers must be able to clearly demonstrate how the use of a primary Move Update method would violate the law. (See the Guide to Move Update at http://beta.postalpro.usps.com/node/1116). Pieces that meet the requirements for the Legal Restraint method will be excluded from the Mailer Scorecard and the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process, as long as the mailpieces use the appropriate CRID or Mailer IDentifier (MID).

Mailer: The term “mailer” within this document encompasses Mail Owners, Mail Preparers, and Mail Service Providers (MSPs).

Mailer Scorecard: This is an electronic report that contains mail quality measurements and assessments on mailings over a calendar month for Move Update, Full-Service Intelligent Mail, eInduction®, and Seamless Acceptance. The Scorecard is accessible through the Business Customer Gateway (BCG) and provides views for both Mail Owners and Mail Service Providers (MSPs).

Non-qualifying Mailings: The below non-qualifying mailpieces will be excluded from the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process and the Mailer Scorecard:

• Mailpieces which are undeliverable due to an address change which is Temporary, Foreign, Moved Left No Address (MLNA), and Box Closed No Order (BCNO).

• Mailpieces that are priced as single-piece.

• Mailpieces that qualify for the Legal Restraint method.

• Mailpieces without the documentation submitted electronically.

Qualifying Mailings: An eDoc submitter is eligible for the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process when at least one of its mailings qualifies for Full-Service in a calendar month. Thereafter, when mailers enter eligible mailings of letter- and flat-size pieces of FCM and Standard Mail that meet the requirements for Basic or Full-Service mailings in a subsequent calendar month, the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process will be used, if the postage statement and supporting documentation are submitted electronically and a unique Intelligent Mail barcode (IMb®) is included in the eDoc.

Summary of Industry Comments and USPS Responses

The Postal Service appreciates all of the comments that were provided by the mailing industry. The valuable feedback was used to establish revised proposed requirements for the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process. Even though this is a proposed rule, we have chosen to include these insightful comments and replies, which can be used as FAQs to further clarify this document. The mailers' comments and corresponding USPS responses are outlined as follows:

Mailer Comment

If mailings are not in compliance with Move Update standards, why is it necessary to levy an additional charge or assessment?

USPS Response

As outlined in the DMM, commercial mailings must comply with the Move Update standard. Regardless of whether the Postal Service measures Move Update compliance through Mail Evaluation Readability Lookup INstrument (MERLIN®) verification or using the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process, failure to meet the Move Update standard may result in an additional postage assessment.

Mailer Comment

How does this proposed rule support the UAA objective?

USPS Response

The ability to observe UAA performance at the individual mailer or service provider level will benefit both the Postal Service and the mailing industry. This data will provide more information regarding the actual mailing performance. This data will provide mailers with viable information to assist with reducing UAA, improve their return on investment, and better understand anomalies that impact Move Update performance.

Mailer Comment

Since the Move Update verification process was implemented in 2008, has data shown a decrease in UAA mail volume?

USPS Response

Yes; since the implementation of Move Update in 2008, UAA volumes have declined:

In 2008, there was an 11.2 percent decline in UAA volume. This reduction was nearly twice the overall decline in FCM volume of 6.4 percent.

From 2008 through 2015, there was a decline of 37 percent in UAA volume, which resulted in a reduction for all mail classes of 2.8 billion UAA pieces.

From 2008 through 2015, there was an overall decline of 43.8 percent in FCM forwarding volume from 1.6 billion pieces in 2008 to 0.9 billion pieces in 2015.

Mailer Comment

Currently, when mailing Periodicals, there is a requirement to pay for manual address corrections. Will this payment cease in conjunction with this proposal?

USPS Response

In this proposed rule, with regard to Full-Service Periodicals mailings, there will no longer be a requirement to receive or pay for manual address corrections, except when manual address correction notifications are specifically requested by the mailer or the mailpiece does not contain a Full-Service ACS STID.

Mailer Comment

For each STID, will the data for both COA errors and the total number of pieces be all-inclusive or be limited by services such as ACS?

USPS Response

The data will be inclusive of both ACS- and non-ACS-requested STIDs.

Mailer Comment

When mailers enter Periodicals, will there still be a requirement for address correction service?

USPS Response

Yes, mailers who enter Periodicals will still be required to meet the requirement for address correction service.

Mailer Comment

Does the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process apply to mailpieces that meet the criteria for single-piece prices, Legal Restraint, and the 99 Percent Accurate Method?

USPS Response

The Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process will exclude mailpieces that are paid at the single-piece price and mailpieces that meet the requirements for the Legal Restraint alternative method, which will be based upon the CRID or MID of the mail owner who is approved for the exemption. In contrast, mailpieces entered under the 99 Percent Accurate Method were factored into the newly proposed Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process error threshold, and these mailpieces will not be excluded from the new measurement process.

In addition to this proposed rule, the Postal Service intends to publish an additional proposed rule to provide further guidance on the Move Update standard. This document will propose that mailers who are authorized for the Legal Restraint Move Update alternative method be required to use an exclusive MID or multiple exclusive MIDs on their mailpieces for Legal Restraint mailings. This would allow the Postal Service to properly identify these types of mailpieces and, when appropriate, exclude the mailpieces from the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process. The mailer will not be able to use these MIDs for other types of mailpieces that do not fall under the Legal Restraint authorization. The Postal Service is working with the Legal Restraint mailers to identify these MIDs. All current Legal Restraint authorized mailers would be allowed a one-year transition period to begin use of the exclusive MIDs. The one-year transition period would be calculated starting from the date of their next annual Legal Restraint reauthorization.

Mailer Comment

If a mailer temporarily falls below the qualifying 75 percent Full-Service threshold for 30 days, what are the consequences?

USPS Response

There will no longer be a qualifying Full-Service percentage; the mailer need only submit one qualifying Full-Service mailing.

Mailer Comment

If a mailer does not enter mailings meeting the 75 percent Full-Service threshold, how will address quality be measured?

USPS Response

To be measured under the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process, there will no longer be a 75 percent Full-Service threshold. For mailers whose CRID does not present any Full-Service mailings, the address quality will be measured through the traditional MERLIN verification process, and the mailer must declare that an approved Postal Service Move Update method was used. An eDoc submitter will be eligible for the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process when at least one of its mailings qualifies for Full-Service in a calendar month. Thereafter, all mailings of letter- and flat-size pieces of FCM and Standard Mail that meet the requirements for Basic or Full-Service mailings entered in a subsequent calendar month will use the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process, if the postage statements and supporting documentation are submitted electronically and unique IMbs are included in the eDoc.

Mailer Comment

When MSPs prepare a combined mailing (multiple Mail Owners), will a fee be assessed if the COA percentage measured for one of the Mail Owners exceeds the error threshold, but the COA percentage measured for the submitter of the eDoc does not exceed the threshold?

USPS Response

If a combined mailing (with multiple Mail Owners) is entered and the COA percentage does not exceed the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process error threshold, no fee would be assessed, because the fee is assessed at the eDoc submitter level.

Mailer Comment

When there is a combined mailing (with multiple Mail Owners), what is the process for ensuring that the correct mailer is assessed for exceeding the error threshold?

USPS Response

For a combined mailing, the Mailer Scorecard and the Mail Entry Assessment Report allow the Postal Service to provide detailed piece-level information and identify Mail Owners who exceed the established Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process error threshold. While the eDoc submitter will pay the assessment to the Postal Service, there will be adequate information for the eDoc submitter to seek reimbursement from the applicable Mail Owner.

Mailer Comment

Can the Postal Service clearly outline the appeal process for postage assessments?

USPS Response

To appeal postage assessments, the dispute process is available on PostalProTM at http://beta.postalpro.usps.com/node/847 and steps are outlined within the Guide to Postage Assessment as follows:

Mailings are evaluated based on an entire calendar month.

If thresholds are exceeded, an invoice is generated and a Mail Entry Assessment Notification is sent on the 10th of the month (for the previous month's mailing activity).

Notifications for all assessments will be sent to the eDoc submitter.

An assessment notification is sent by email to the individual designated by the mailer for each CRID in BCG as the Verification Assessment Evaluator (VAE). Mailers can also review assessment information through the Mailer Scorecard.

VAE accesses BCG and pays invoice.

If a VAE is not in agreement with the charges, the VAE may dispute charges by requesting a review and providing supporting documentation within 10 days of assessment notification.

Business Mail Entry (BME) reviews the documentation and contacts the mailer with results.

Mailer Comment

Will there be changes to the National Change of Address Linkage System (NCOALink®)?

USPS Response

Currently, there are no changes to the database for NCOALink which would affect a mailer's ability to use the product or comply with Move Update requirements. If such changes are anticipated, the Postal Service is always willing to work with mailers to mitigate impacts.

Mailer Comment

Is it the intent of the Postal Service to make ACS the default source for Move Update changes and eliminate the other methods (NCOALink Mail Processing Equipment (MPE), Ancillary Service Endorsement (ASE), and NCOALink)?

USPS Response

The Postal Service has no intention of making ACS the default source for Move Update or eliminating any of the other USPS-approved Move Update methods.

Mailer Comment

Will the traditional ACS be free and postage statements be modified to reflect these new changes?

USPS Response

In general, the traditional ACS fees will not be waived. The postage statements will be modified to incorporate all new changes.

Mailer Comment

What mechanisms are in place to correct erroneous information in the Mailer Scorecard?

USPS Response

The Postal Service is working internally to validate the Mailer Scorecard. All known systemic issues are currently being addressed. In addition, a task team consisting of both Postal Service and Mailing Industry representatives is validating the reliability and stability of the Mailer Scorecard and all corresponding reports. After the assessment period begins, if new issues are identified, the Postal Service will remove all applicable charges resulting from USPS systemic issues.

Mailer Comment

Under the new measurement process, what is the actual assessment fee for mailpieces that exceed the established error threshold?

USPS Response

The address quality assessment fee has not been determined and is subject to USPS management and regulatory approval.

Mailer Comment

Will the address quality assessment fee vary based on the disposition activity (forwarded, returned, or destroyed) of the mailpieces in question?

USPS Response

No; the address quality assessment fee will be the same for all mailpieces that exceed the established Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process error threshold, regardless of whether they are forwarded, returned, or destroyed.

Mailer Comment

What happens if mail is mistakenly run through MERLIN? Is there a risk of double jeopardy?

USPS Response

If mail is mistakenly processed on MERLIN, there will be no risk of double jeopardy. Once mailers qualify for the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process, they will be removed from the MERLIN Move Update verification process. Prior to the implementation of the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process, all Postal Service acceptance employees will be trained. However, if a mailing is mistakenly processed on MERLIN and additional postage under that method is assessed, the associated assessment fee will be removed.

Mailer Comment

Will MERLIN be used for evaluating mail in the future?

USPS Response

MERLIN will still be used to measure Move Update compliance for those mailers who enter mailings that do not meet the requirements to be evaluated under the newly proposed Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process.

Mailer Comment

Will the error threshold for the newly proposed process be applied at the Mail Owner or CRID level?

USPS Response

The error threshold for the new proposed Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process will apply to the eDoc submitter at the CRID level.

Mailer Comment

Regarding assessments, it is recommended that the Postal Service focus on the individual Mail Owner, which will allow the MSP to be free from the onerous task of determining who should pay an assessment fee.

USPS Response

The Postal Service is providing specific data to assist the MSP with identifying the Mail Owners who are exceeding the established Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process error threshold and contributing to the assessment fee.

Mailer Comment

When the Mail Preparer performs the Move Update functions, will the Postal Service negotiate the credit between the Mail Owner and MSP?

USPS Response

All assessments will be remitted to the eDoc submitter for payment; negotiations between the Mail Owner and MSP will not be managed by the Postal Service.

Mailer Comment

How will the Postal Service ensure that the data from the MicroStrategy Report within the Mailer Scorecard is reliable?

USPS Response

An internal Postal Service team as well as a task team consisting of both Postal Service and Mail Industry representatives will validate the data integrity of the MicroStrategy Reports and Mailer Scorecard. These reports outline detailed mailpiece data for errors that are captured.

Mailer Comment

Will there still be two different databases relative to address changes, i.e. Postal Automated Redirection System (PARS) vs. NCOALink?

USPS Response

Yes, two separate databases will continue to exist as follows:

PARS: This database has 18 months of COA data for processing UAA mail.

NCOALink: This database holds up to 48 months of COA data for updating mailing lists.

Mailer Comment

Does the United States Postal Inspection Service (USPIS) agree with the newly proposed measurement process, and how will investigations be determined?

USPS Response

Yes, USPIS agrees with the decision to utilize the newly proposed Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process, which allows the Postal Service to leverage technology. Also, USPIS will continue to collaborate with the Postal Service on all matters, including the determination of whether investigations are warranted.

Background

The Postal Service requires mailers to update address-related changes through the Move Update requirements process. Currently, Move Update compliance is measured at the mailing level using MERLIN as follows:

At the point of acceptance, mailings are randomly selected for address quality assessment, and samples of the selected mailings are processed through MERLIN.

PostalOne!® sends an electronic version of the mailer's Postage Statement Message (PSM) to the MERLIN Maintenance and Operations Database (MMOD).

MMOD routes the PSM to the appropriate site and MERLIN machine.

Postal Service personnel generate a verification report, and the report produces a set of results that are routed back to the MMOD system.

MERLIN generates a report that provides the details on mail quality.

MMOD sends an Address Quality Validation System (AQVS) message-stream of addresses, names, and ZIP Codes to the National Customer Support Center (NCSC) for Move Update processing.

MERLIN captures the address information from the mailpiece and electronically sends each record to the NCSC to see if there is a COA on file.

The piece is identified as an error if the mailer did not use the updated address indicated in the COA on file, and the COA “filing date” is between 95 days and 18 months of the postage statement finalization date.

NCSC processes the AQVS data stream and sends the results to PostalOne!, which addresses the Move Update failures.

PostalOne! uses the mail verification and NCSC Move Update results to formulate the final charges.

In 2013, the Postal Service introduced the concept of measuring and assessing mail quality for mailings over a calendar month for Full-Service Intelligent Mail, eInduction, and Seamless Acceptance. Since August 2014, Postal Service technology has further evolved so that, when mailers use an IMb and submit their postage statements and supporting documentation electronically, data collection scans from mail processing equipment (MPE) can be used to evaluate the address and move-related quality of mail being processed. Accordingly, the Postal Service is using this technology as an alternative to measure and evaluate the quality of mailings.

Future Process

The Postal Service is proposing to add a Move Update compliance verification process named the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process for letter- and flat-size pieces of FCM and Standard Mail that meet the requirements for Basic or Full-Service mailings.

Mailers of Periodicals will be provided with address quality data; however, Periodicals will not fall under the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process. This newly proposed process will result in several benefits including enhanced mailing visibility and improved mail quality metrics over all mailings within a calendar month, rather than sampled mailings.

This process is a much more robust method to assess Move Update compliance, which would be measured across all mailings within a calendar month according to the following process:

Mailpieces are scanned on MPE.

Data from mailpieces identified as UAA is captured and evaluated to determine if COA information is on file.

The address information for mailpieces matching an active COA is captured from the piece and sent electronically to NCSC.

Move Update validations are performed by comparing the MID + Serial Number of the IMb from the COA-related mailpiece data. If the COA is between 95 days and 18 months old, and the address has not been updated, then a COA error for the associated IMb is logged and allocated under the CRID of the eDoc submitter.

The proposed Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process error threshold that is under consideration is 0.5 percent. This threshold, which is subject to review at the PRC, would be applied to all pieces submitted by an eDoc submitter in a calendar month.

The Postal Service would assess the relevant eDoc submitter CRID for each non-compliant mailpiece beyond the threshold.

The data would be collected and reported on the Mailer Scorecard under the eDoc submitter CRID.

Address Quality Assessment Fee

The address quality assessment fee will be applied to mailpieces in qualifying mailings that contain COA errors in excess of the established Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process error threshold. This address quality assessment fee is currently pending management and regulatory approval.

Once the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process is in place, qualifying mailings will no longer be required to document Move Update compliance methods on the postage statement, mail.dat, or mail.xml. However, documents demonstrating the method used should be available upon request by the Postal Service, and mailers must continue to use a Move Update method in order to remain below the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process error threshold, expedite the delivery of mail by avoiding mail forwarding, and increase the security and privacy of sensitive customer information.

Mailer Scorecard

The Mailer Scorecard is currently available to mailers. This report provides data that allow mailers to gauge address quality on their mailpieces. After the final rule is implemented and the PRC review is completed, mailings with errors that exceed the newly proposed Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process error threshold will incur an address quality assessment fee.

Criteria

The Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process will apply to mailings when mailers:

Submit any mailpieces during a calendar month as Full-Service.

Use a unique Basic or Full-Service IMb on mailings of letter- and flat-size pieces for FCM and Standard Mail.

Use eDoc to submit mailing information.

Specifications

After the test period commences, address quality will be measured as follows:

Analysis will be performed on all pieces in the mailing, rather than on a sample.

The assessment will be determined by the number of COA errors, in a calendar month, divided by the total number of pieces mailed that were subject to analysis. The resulting percentage will be compared to the established Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process error threshold.

There are a number of exclusions to the measurement and assessment process. Generally, mailpieces with addresses that have the following COA characteristics will not be included in the assessment: Temporary moves, MLNA, BCNO, and COA data for foreign addresses.

Mailpieces authorized for the Legal Restraint alternate Move Update method (See Guide to Move Update) will be excluded at the CRID level of the Mail Owner, during a short transition period. After the transition period, an established MID will be identified for use on mailpieces that fall under the Legal Restraint method.

Mailpiece Results

Once qualifying mailings are processed on MPE, the data from mailpieces are reconciled with eDoc. These results are available on the BCG and displayed on the Electronic Verification tab of the Mailer Scorecard, which can be easily accessed at https://gateway.usps.com/eAdmin/view/signin. Mailers are able to review the Mailer Scorecard and corresponding detailed reports to identify any anomalies or issues.

To resolve Mailer Scorecard irregularities, mailers should contact the PostalOne! ® Help Desk at 800-522-9085 or their local Business Mail Entry Unit (BMEU).

Address Change Service and Correction Notifications

In order to further encourage the adoption of Full-Service, the Postal Service is proposing to extend free Full-Service ACS to qualifying Basic automation and non-automation mailpieces for mailers who enter at least 95 percent of their mail as Full-Service in a calendar month. The Basic mailpieces must be prepared as follows:

Bear a unique IMb printed on the mailpiece.

Include a Full-Service ACS or OneCode ACS® STID in the IMb.

Include the unique IMb in eDoc.

Provide accurate mail owner identification in eDoc.

Address change information will be provided to the Mail Owner identified in eDoc. Address change information which does not qualify for free ACS will continue to be provided through SingleSource at the appropriate charge.

As part of this proposed rule, mailers who enter mailings of Full-Service Periodicals would no longer be required to receive and pay for manual address corrections when a Full-Service ACS STID is used. However, these mailers may elect to receive and pay for manual address correction notifications by including the appropriate STID within the IMb.

List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 111

Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service.

Although exempt from the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b), (c)) regarding proposed rulemaking by 39 U.S.C. 410(a), the Postal Service invites public comments on the following proposed revisions to Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM), incorporated by reference in the Code of Federal Regulations. See 39 CFR 111.1. Accordingly, 39 CFR part 111 is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 111—[AMENDED]1. The authority citation for 39 CFR part 111 continues to read as follows:Authority:

2. Revise the following sections of Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM), as follows:Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM)507 Mailer Services1.0 Treatment of Mail1.5 Treatment for Ancillary Services by Class of Mail1.5.2 Periodicals

[Revise 507.1.5.2c by changing the last word of the sentence to “received” as follows:]

c. Address correction service is mandatory for all Periodicals publications, and the address correction service fee must be paid for each notice received.

[Revise 507.4.2.2 by modifying the introductory sentence and adding a new item “d” as follows:]

ACS offers four levels of service, as follows:

d. A Full-Service option available to mailings of First-Class Mail automation cards, letters, and flats; Standard Mail automation letters and flats; Standard Mail Carrier Route, High Density, and Saturation letters; Periodicals Outside County barcoded or Carrier Route letters and flats; Periodicals In-County automation or Carrier Route letters and flats; and Bound Printed Matter Presorted, non-DDU barcoded flats. Mailers who present at least 95 percent of their eligible First-Class Mail and Standard Mail volume as Full-Service in a calendar month will receive electronic address correction notices for their qualifying mailpieces of Basic automation and non-automation First-Class Mail and Standard Mail at the address correction fee for pieces which are eligible under the Full-Service Intelligent Mail option in 705.23.0, for the next calendar month. The Basic First-Class Mail and Standard Mail mailpieces must:

1. Bear a unique IMb printed on the mailpiece.

2. Include a Full-Service or OneCode ACS STID in the IMb.

3. Include the unique IMb in eDoc.

4. Provide accurate mail owner identification in eDoc.

4.2.8 Address Correction Service Fee

[Revise 507.4.2.8 by deleting the current language and adding new language as follows:]

ACS fees will be assessed as follows:

a. The applicable fee for address correction is charged for each separate notification of address correction or the reason for nondelivery provided, unless an exception applies.

b. Once the ACS fee charges have been invoiced, any unpaid fees for the prior invoice cycle (month) will be assessed an annual administrative fee of 10 percent for the overdue amount.

c. Mailers who present at least 95 percent of their eligible First-Class Mail and Standard Mail volume as Full-Service in a calendar month will receive electronic address correction notices for their qualifying Basic automation and non-automation First-Class Mail and Standard Mail mailpieces, as specified in 4.2.2. The electronic address correction notices are charged at the applicable Full-Service address correction fee for the next calendar month.

[Revise 602.5.3 by removing the current language and adding new 5.3.1. and 5.3.2 as follows:]

5.3.1 Basic Move Update Assessment Charge

Mailings that do not fall under 5.3.2 are subject to a Move Update assessment charge, if more than 30 percent of addresses with a change-of-address (COA) are not updated, based on the error percent found in Postal Service sampling at acceptance during Performance-Based Verification. Specifically, mailings for which the sample contains greater than 30 percent failed COAs out of the total COAs in the sample are subject to additional postage charges as follows:

a. The percentage of the mailing paying the charge is based on the percentage of failed pieces above 30 percent.

b. Each of the assessed pieces is subject to the established per piece charge.

c. As an example, if 40 percent of COAs in the sample are not updated, then the charge is applied to 10 percent (= 40%−30%) of the total mailing.

d. Mailings for which the sample has five or fewer pieces that were not updated for a COA are not subject to the assessment, regardless of the failure percentage.

5.3.2 Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Charge

Mailers who have submitted any Full-Service volume in a calendar month will be subject to the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process beginning in the next calendar month. Mailings will be subject to the Address Quality Census Measurement Assessment charge (address quality assessment fee) if submitted via eDoc with unique Basic or Full-Service IMbs on letter- and flat-size pieces of First-Class Mail and Standard Mail. The address quality assessment fee will be assessed if:

a. The percent of all qualifying mail submitted in a calendar month that have a COA error is greater than the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process error threshold, as determined by an analysis of the data captured by mail processing equipment. A COA error occurs when the address on the mailpiece has not been updated within 95 days of the COA move effective date or the COA record creation date, whichever is later.

[Revise 602.5.4 by modifying introductory paragraph and adding new items “a” and “b” as follows:]

The mailer's signature on the postage statement certifies that the Move Update standard has been met for each address in the corresponding mailing presented to the USPS as follows:

a. For mailings that fall under 5.3.1, the mailer's signature on the postage statement certifies that the Move Update standard has been met for each address in the corresponding mailing presented to the Postal Service.

b. For mailings that fall under 5.3.2, the Move Update compliance method does not need to be declared on the postage statement or within the mail.dat or mail.xml file. However, documentation demonstrating compliance must be retained and provided upon request of the Postal Service.

On April 1, 2014, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) published a rule in the Federal Register proposing to amend the Department of Energy Acquisition Regulation (DEAR). DOE hereby withdraws this proposed rule.

DATES:

The proposed rule that appeared in the Federal Register on April 1, 2014 at 79 FR 18415 is withdrawn as of July 6, 2016.

On April 1, 2014, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) published a rule proposing to amend the Department of Energy Acquisition Regulation (DEAR) to define contractor business system as an accounting system, estimating system, purchasing system, earned value management system (EVMS), and property management system (79 FR 18415). In the proposed rulemaking, DOE proposed to implement compliance enforcement mechanisms in the form of a contractor business system clause and related clauses that included a provision that would allow contracting officers to withhold a percentage of payments, under certain conditions, when a contractor's business system contained significant deficiencies. However, the Department has determined that it will not proceed with the rulemaking and, as such, is withdrawing the proposed rule.

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce 12-month findings on petitions to list the Eagle Lake rainbow trout and the Ichetucknee siltsnail as endangered species or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After a review of the best available scientific and commercial information, we find that listing the Eagle Lake rainbow trout and the Ichetucknee siltsnail is not warranted at this time. However, we ask the public to submit to us at any time any new information that becomes available concerning the stressors to the Eagle Lake rainbow trout and the Ichetucknee siltsnail or their habitats.

DATES:

The findings announced in this document were made on July 6, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

These findings are available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at the following docket numbers:

SpeciesDocket No.Eagle Lake rainbow troutFWS-R8-ES-2012-0072Ichetucknee siltsnailFWS-R4-ES-2011-0049Supporting information used in preparing these findings is available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours, by contacting the appropriate person, as specified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Please submit any new information, materials, comments, or questions concerning these findings to the appropriate person, as specified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that, for any petition to revise the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants that contains substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing an animal or plant species may be warranted, we make a finding within 12 months of the date of receipt of the petition (“12-month finding”). In this finding, we determine whether listing the Eagle Lake rainbow trout and the Ichetucknee siltsnail is: (1) Not warranted; (2) warranted; or (3) warranted, but the immediate proposal of a regulation implementing the petitioned action is precluded by other pending proposals to determine whether species are endangered or threatened species, and expeditious progress is being made to add or remove qualified species from the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (warranted but precluded). Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we treat a petition for which the requested action is found to be warranted but precluded as though resubmitted on the date of such finding, that is, requiring a subsequent finding to be made within 12 months. We must publish these 12-month findings in the Federal Register.

Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing regulations in part 424 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth procedures for adding species to, removing species from, or reclassifying species on the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. The Act defines “endangered species” as any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, section 3(6), and “threatened species” as any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range, section 3(20). Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be determined to be an endangered species or a threatened species based on any of the following five factors:

(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;

(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

We summarize below the information on which we based our evaluation of the five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of the Act in determining whether the Eagle Lake rainbow trout and the Ichetucknee siltsnail meet the definition of an endangered species or threatened species. More detailed information about these species is presented in the species-specific assessment forms found on http://www.regulations.gov under the appropriate docket number (see ADDRESSES). In considering what stressors under the five factors might constitute threats, we must look beyond the mere exposure of the species to the factor to determine whether the species responds to the factor in a way that causes actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor, but no response, or only a positive response, that factor is not a threat. If there is exposure and the species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat. In that case, we determine if that stressor rises to the level of a threat, meaning that it may drive or contribute to the risk of extinction of the species such that the species warrants listing as an endangered or threatened species as those terms are defined by the Act. This does not necessarily require empirical proof of a threat. The combination of exposure and some corroborating evidence of how the species is likely affected could suffice. The mere identification of stressors that could affect a species negatively is not sufficient to compel a finding that listing is appropriate; we require evidence that these stressors are operative threats that act on the species to the point that the species meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species under the Act.

In making our 12-month findings, we considered and evaluated the best available scientific and commercial information.

The Service has been petitioned three times to add the Eagle Lake rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss aquilarum) (ELRT) to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife under the authority of the Act. On April 28, 1994, we received a petition from John F. Bosta, of Susanville, California, requesting that we list the ELRT as an endangered or threatened species, designate critical habitat, and develop a recovery plan for the species. On August 7, 1995, we published our 90-day finding in the Federal Register (60 FR 40149) stating that the petition did not present substantial information to indicate that listing the ELRT as an endangered or threatened species under the Act may be warranted.

On August 15, 2003, we received a second petition from Mr. John Bosta, requesting that we list the ELRT as an endangered or threatened species under the Act. On October 6, 2003, we received a similar petition from Mr. Chuck Sanford, of Loomis, California, dated September 28, 2003. Mr. Sanford's petition repeated the same information provided earlier in the Bosta 2003 petition and was therefore treated as a comment on the first petition received. In our February 24, 2004, response letter to Mr. Bosta, we explained that we had reviewed the petition and determined that an emergency listing was not warranted, and that because of other court-ordered listing and critical habitat actions and settlements, we would not be able to otherwise address the petition to list the ELRT at that time, but would complete the action when workload and funding allowed.

In a settlement agreement with WildEarth Guardians dated May 10, 2011 [WildEarth Guardians v. Salazar, No. 10-377 (EGS) MDL Docket No. 2165], we agreed to complete our 90-day finding on the 2003 petition to list the ELRT on or before September 30, 2012. On September 5, 2012, we published our 90-day finding in the Federal Register (77 FR 54548), in which we determined that the petition presented substantial information indicating that the ELRT may be warranted for listing as an endangered or threatened species, and initiated a status review and solicited information on the stressors potentially affecting the ELRT. Specifically, we found that the petition and information in our files indicated that the habitat in Pine Creek, a tributary to Eagle Lake and the major stream spawning habitat for ELRT, was degraded and that access to the stream was blocked by a weir used for collecting fish for hatchery purposes. We also found that the ELRT population in Pine Creek was subject to predation pressure from introduced nonnative brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis).

On May 13, 2014, Western Watersheds Project (WWP) submitted a notice of intent to sue the Service for failure to complete a 12-month finding on the 2003 petition and determine the listing status of the ELRT under the Act. On September 23, 2014, WWP filed a complaint (Western Watersheds Project v. Jewell et al.; Case 2:14-CV-02205-MCE-KJN) to compel the Service to issue the 12-month finding.

On March 17, 2015, the Service entered into a stipulated settlement agreement with WWP agreeing that no later than June 30, 2016, the Service would submit to the Federal Register a 12-month finding as to whether listing the ELRT under the Act is warranted, not warranted, or warranted but precluded.

Background

The ELRT is a subspecies of rainbow trout endemic to the highly alkaline Eagle Lake and its main tributary, Pine Creek. Its range is restricted to Eagle Lake, Pine and Bogard Spring Creeks within the Pine Creek watershed, and, on occasion, other small tributaries to Eagle Lake, such as Merrill and Papoose Creeks. Past cumulative impacts from improper land management, introduction of nonnative fishes, overharvesting, and lowering lake levels during the late 1800s and the early 1900s resulted in the degradation of habitat within the Pine Creek watershed and a sharply declining ELRT population. To ensure the persistence of the subspecies and to sustain a trophy fishery in Eagle Lake, a hatchery program for the ELRT was created by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) in 1950. In 1959, the Pine Creek Fish Trap and barrier weir (Trap) was constructed at the mouth of Pine Creek to assist in the collection of adult spawners for the hatchery program. The barrier weir blocked all fish passage except during high flow events; then, in 1995, the weir was modified further to block all fish passage, even in high flow events. In addition to the barrier weir, past land use practices had degraded stream conditions in the Pine Creek watershed. While the hatchery program substantially increased the ELRT population from historic lows observed in the 1930s-1940s, the blockage of natural stream spawning opportunities, in combination with the degraded watershed conditions, prevented natural lake-to-stream spawning and resulted in an increased dependence on hatchery propagation.

Stream-resident ELRT have been observed spawning in the intermittent and perennial sections of Pine Creek, which may be contributing to the natural reproductive population. There was an observation of spawning within the intermittent portions of Pine Creek and the subsequent downstream migration of fry in 2011. There were also observations of spawning within the perennial portions of Pine Creek in 2009, and fry were observed the following spring in Pine Creek. Some spawning activity has also been observed along the gravelly shores of Eagle Lake, but it is unknown if spawning was successful or if it contributed to recruitment of the population. There has been recent successful spawning of ELRT in an aquarium at the Turtle Bay Museum in Redding, California, which suggests that spawning outside of the stream habitat is possible.

Summary of Status Review

At the time of our 90-day finding in 2012, we found that the petition presented substantial information that the ELRT may warrant listing due to the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range based on the presence of a hatchery weir on Pine Creek impeding fish passage, predation from introduced nonnative brook trout on the remnant ELRT population in the headwaters of Pine Creek, and because of the ongoing hatchery program and hatchery practices potentially causing genotypic and phenotypic genetic shift in ELRT populations. Since our 90-day finding was issued on September 5, 2012, numerous conservation efforts have been implemented or are ongoing, and these conservation efforts have reduced the level of impact on the ELRT from identified stressors.

Stressors Impacting ELRT: In completing our status review for the ELRT, we reviewed the best scientific and commercial data available and compiled this information in the 2016 Species Report for the Eagle Lake Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss aquilarum) (Service, 2016). For our finding, we evaluated potential stressors related to the ELRT and its habitat. The different levels of impact of each stressor or combination of stressors are defined as follows: (1) Low-level impacts are those that result in a minor loss of individuals and/or habitat currently or expected in the future; (2) moderate-level impacts are those that result in more than a minor loss, but not a widespread loss, of individuals and/or habitat currently or expected in the future; and (3) high-level impacts are those that result in a widespread loss of individuals and/or habitat currently or expected in the future.

The stressors we analyzed were grazing, roads and railroads, water impoundments, fish passage barriers, recreational fishing, predation from and competition with brook trout, disease, effects from artificial propagation, and effects from climate change. The full analysis for all of these stressors can be found in the ELRT 12-Month Petition Finding's Supporting Document at http://www.regulations.gov (see ADDRESSES, above). As discussed in greater detail in that document, we have concluded, based on the best information available at this time, that the effects from grazing, roads and railroads, water impoundments, fish passage barriers, recreational fishing, disease, and effects from artificial propagation (all of the stressors analyzed, other than predation from and competition with brook trout and climate change, which, as discussed further below, have moderate-level impacts) are currently low-level impacts to ELRT and will continue at a low level into the future. With respect to fish passage barriers, the fact that this stressor—which historically had severe, high-level impacts—currently has only low-level impacts on the ELRT reflects a significant change in conditions that has reduced the stressors on the ELRT and improved its status.

As noted above, beginning in 1959 the Pine Creek Fish Trap and barrier weir prevented any migrations between Eagle Lake and suitable spawning habitat in the upper Pine Creek watershed. However, a fishway was installed in the Trap in 2012, which now fully allows upstream spawning migration runs. A few other fish passage barriers still currently exist, higher up in the watershed upstream of the Trap, but these are only barriers under extreme low flow conditions and only have the potential to be minor impediments to habitat access by stream-resident fish in some locations. Currently, the only significant barrier to spawning migration is the lack of consistent annual flow within the lower, intermittent portions of the Pine Creek watershed. Past land use management practices, which have now been discontinued, likely exacerbated the effects of inconsistent flows by degrading habitat conditions, which in turn would have reduced the amount of suitable migration opportunities. However, this inconsistent flow barrier appears to be a natural condition of the system in which the ELRT has evolved. With the removal of the Trap as a barrier and discontinuation of harmful land use management practices that occurred in the past, the ELRT are now returned to the natural condition, including the inconsistency of adequate annual flows. As a result of this natural condition of inconsistent annual flows, there remains a potential that ELRT individuals during the spring attempting to migrate into the Pine Creek watershed to spawn may be either completely precluded from making spawning runs in any given year, or get stranded before reaching spawning habitat. There is no information to indicate these conditions will change (e.g., more frequent adequate annual flows) in the future, and therefore we believe this condition will continue to result in a minor loss of both individuals and habitat. However, while remaining barriers may result in reduced habitat opportunities in some locations, and inconsistent annual flows may result in reduced spawning opportunities or stranded individuals, conservation efforts (including installation of the fishway in the Pine Creek fish trap) have significantly improved the overall condition relative to passage barriers and have greatly improved the outlook for the ELRT, since it went from no ability at all for natural spawning from Eagle Lake to significantly increased opportunities throughout the watershed.

Two of the stressors—predation from and competition with brook trout, and the potential effects from climate change—may result in moderate-level effects. The populations of nonnative brook trout that occur within the Pine Creek watershed have impeded the ability of the ELRT to establish a large stream population within the perennial portions of Pine and Bogard Spring Creeks. The large brook trout population not only competes with the ELRT for resources, but also preys on ELRT eggs and juveniles. The presence of brook trout likely precludes a robust population of stream-dwelling ELRT, both those resident now and those expected to migrate there now that passage barriers have been removed. However, there have been observations of individual ELRT and ELRT-spawning in the perennial sections of the watershed with brook trout present, demonstrating an ability to withstand some level of co-occurrence. During a 3-year electrofishing study in Bogard Spring Creek from 2007-2009, ELRT made up 3 percent of the fish caught, and brook trout made up 92 percent (Carmona-Catot et al. 2011, p. 331). Competition with and predation from nonnative brook trout will continue to be a source of loss of individuals within the Pine Creek watershed into the future, for as long as brook trout are present. However, this stressor does not rise to the level of a threat for the subspecies for several reasons: (1) Brook trout only affect a small portion of the overall ELRT population, since brook trout only occur in the perennial portions of the Pine Creek Watershed and not in the lake, where the main population of ELRT are found; (2) there is some evidence that ELRT may successfully spawn apart from the upper watershed streams; (3) ELRT are able to co-occur at low levels in streams where brook trout are present; and (4) the sustainable hatchery operations are continuing to provide robust, healthy populations of ELRT throughout the entire watershed.

The effects of climate change will result in low- to moderate-level impacts into the foreseeable future, depending on various projected climate conditions. Future climate trends and projected climate models show a range of conditions that may occur in the future. Therefore, the degree to which climate change acts on the subspecies may vary (within the low to moderate range) under each projected modeled scenario.

Climate change may change the flow regime of the Pine Creek watershed, which may in turn influence the ELRT's ability to reach spawning habitat during the typical spawning migration timeframe. Climate change models predict that winter temperatures would increase, and that winter precipitation would shift from snow to rain. Under the lower emission scenario, April snowpack would be reduced 65 to 87 percent in the 5,740-foot (1,750-meter) elevation range of Pine Creek, and under the higher emission scenario, the reduction would be from 95 to 97 percent. In either scenario, Pine Creek would be likely to flow more during the winter, due to winter rain events, but flows from snowmelt during the spring season would be lower. This has the potential to “shift” the flow regime that is suitable for migration backwards in the year toward the winter months. Such a change would be likely to affect ELRT's spawning timing into upper Pine Creek. However, historically (before climate change was a factor) runoff timing and stream flow duration have always been a limiting environmental factor in successful spawning migrations of ELRT, and observations have shown that ELRT has a large variability in spawning timing. ELRT have been observed entering streams during spawning migrations from early February through late May. The earliest spawning migration is recorded as February 9 through 12, 2015, when adult ELRT were seen entering Papoose Creek. The latest recorded spawning migration is within Pine Creek, where adults were observed spawning on May 23, 1975, and on May 22, 1995. Because of ELRT's ability historically to withstand stressful, varying conditions, and their plasticity in spawning timing, the potential change in Pine Creek's flow regime is not likely to impede their spawning migrations significantly. However, one possible consequence of an earlier spawning migration may be a reduction in the duration of the spawning season. Since spawning migrations are triggered by increasing water temperatures, earlier runoff will narrow the amount of time when there is adequate runoff at the appropriate temperature for the spawning migration. This may result in fewer individuals migrating and, ultimately, fewer individuals contributing to the reproductive population. It is important to note that this discussion about potential effects to spawning timing is in the context of a newly re-established migratory connection between Eagle Lake and Pine Creek. For many years prior, ELRT has been unable to migrate from Eagle Lake to Pine Creek at all. This effectively means that, even if there is some slight impact from a shift in the flow regime resulting from climate change, there will be a net increase in natural stream spawning, now and into the future. For a more in-depth discussion of the potential effects from climate change relative to ELRT spawning, please see the ELRT 12-Month Petition Finding's Supporting Document (see ADDRESSES). In addition, while we have determined that the potential effects from various climate change scenarios are not likely to rise to the level of impact on the ELRT such that it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, based solely on projected conditions and conservation efforts that have already been implemented and/or are already ongoing and likely to continue into the future. Planned conservation (see below), including restoration of stream habitat, channel function, and hydrology, will further improve the watershed's hydrologic function and help make the watershed more resilient to the effects of drought, potentially improving flow duration and volume. Increasing the robustness of the stream population will ensure natural production will take place at times when successful spawning migration is not possible, as the stream resident population will be capable of spawning and rearing within Pine Creek, and then migrate to Eagle Lake in subsequent years when conditions allow. Finally, any improvements to the artificial spawning program as a result of genetic studies will potentially improve the genetic variability of the subspecies, making it more likely the ELRT will be able to withstand environmental changes into the future.

In addition to evaluating the effect of individual stressors, we also looked to see whether multiple stressors may act concurrently on the species, and whether any synergistic effects were likely. Multiple stressors may act on the same individuals of a species or their habitat at the same time, which can result in impacts that are not accounted for when stressors are analyzed separately. Stressors that appear minor when considered alone may have greater impacts on individuals or habitat when analyzed cumulatively with other stressors. Furthermore, some stressors may act synergistically to cause impacts that are greater than the cumulative sum of the individual stressors. Cumulative effects can be described as additive, with the effects from each individual stressor being added to the effect from each subsequent stressor, and all effects are combined in an overall impact on the species. Synergistic effects go beyond a straightforward additive approach; instead a synergistic approach describes when multiple stressors, interacting on a species or its habitat at the same time, actually increase the intensity of one or more of those stressors.

Past cumulative effects to habitat within the Pine Creek watershed reduced the quality and quantity of spawning and rearing habitat within the Pine Creek watershed, and in conjunction with overharvesting, introduction of nonnative fish, and lowering of the lake level, the population of ELRT declined. The population decline prompted the construction of the Trap and barrier weir to prevent the loss of adult individuals trying to migrate upstream and to collect adult spawners for hatchery purposes. As a result of that construction, the past cumulative impacts have been greatly reduced.

Under the current conditions, we found that it would be reasonable to anticipate cumulative effects on the ELRT from climate change altering the flow regime and the presence of brook trout. These stressors combined may result in additional individuals being lost; however, this loss would still be considered a moderate-level impact: More than a minor, but not widespread loss of individuals, particularly when the installation of the fishway is likely to significantly improve the ability of ELRT to spawn. We found no information indicating a potential for synergistic effects between any of the stressors. Moreover, any such moderate-level impacts—even when combined with low-level impacts from other stressors—would not cause the ELRT to be in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future.

Conservation Efforts: In addition to evaluating the stressors, we also considered and evaluated conservation efforts that have been implemented and shown to be effective in ameliorating the effects of stressors on the ELRT. We describe below the sources of these completed conservation efforts (including some future conservation efforts yet to be implemented, although we did not rely on those future conservation efforts for the determination in this finding). To view the complete suite of all conservation efforts, please see Tables 2 and 3 of the ELRT Species Report (Service, 2016, pp. 50-54, 57-60).

CRMP Group: In 1987, the Coordinated Resource Management Planning (CRMP) group was formed to identify goals and implement a course of action for habitat and ecosystem restoration for Pine Creek. The CRMP group includes membership by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), the University of California Cooperative Extension for Lassen County, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and local landowners and interested parties. The initial goals for restoring Pine Creek included: (1) Improve streambank stability; (2) improve vegetation cover in the watershed; (3) raise the streambed and water table in the drainage, and spread out peak flows of Pine Creek; (4) restore the natural ELRT fishery in Pine Creek; (5) improve wildlife habitat along Pine Creek; (6) reduce nutrient and sediment loading into Eagle Lake from Pine Creek; (7) maintain grazing and timber management; and (8) meet goals in a coordinated effort with all affected parties. The Service has been occasionally involved in the planning efforts of the CRMP group since 1995.

The CRMP group has completed numerous successful restoration actions since 1989 to improve habitat conditions and re-establish natural populations and spawning runs of ELRT within the Pine Creek watershed. Restoration actions have included, among other things, replacing culverts to increase fish passage and improving grazing practices. A summary of the restoration actions, both completed and planned, is shown in Table 2 of the Service's ELRT Species Report (Service 2016, pp. 49-54). As stated above, our determination in this finding only relied on those conservation efforts that have been implemented and shown effective at reducing or removing stressor impacts. 2015 ELRT Conservation Agreement and Conservation Strategy: A 2015 conservation agreement for ELRT and the associated conservation strategy were developed to expedite the implementation of conservation measures for the ELRT as a collaborative and cooperative effort among the CDFW, the USFS, and the Service. The conservation strategy was created to serve as a framework for the conservation and protection of the ELRT and to contribute to the species' persistence into the future. Conservation actions described in the conservation strategy are currently being implemented by CDFW and USFS, or are being planned for future implementation. As stated above, our determination in this finding only relied on those conservation efforts that have been implemented and shown effective at reducing or removing stressor impacts. These conservation efforts included:

Role of CDFW Fish Hatcheries: Since the 1950s, CDFW has been raising ELRT for fish stocking in Eagle Lake and Pine Creek. In addition to other hatcheries that raise ELRT for fish stocking throughout the nation, there are currently two CDFW fish hatcheries (Darrah Springs and Crystal Lake State Fish Hatcheries) that raise ELRT for stocking into Eagle Lake and Pine Creek. Both of these hatcheries have completed conservation efforts recommended by the CRMP group and are currently participating in conservation efforts in support of the 2015 conservation agreement and conservation strategy. The CDFW has been an active member in planning and implementing ELRT restoration actions since 1989 as part of the CRMP group. CDFW assisted in the development of the conservation strategy and is a signatory agency on the conservation agreement.

The two CDFW fish hatcheries are being operated in a manner to provide conservation benefits to the subspecies by: (1) Producing a large number of stocked ELRT annually, with no indication or reason to stop doing so in the future; (2) monitoring naturally produced fish; (3) managing for genetic diversity and disease outbreak control; (4) providing access to upstream creek reaches for spawning by installation of the fishway at the Trap; and (5) planning to remove predatory nonnative brook trout. In evaluating the conservation benefits from hatchery operations, we did not rely on the potential for brook trout removal. Instead, we focused on those actions already undertaken (removal of the Trap as a passage barrier) and operations that are already in place (propagation, genetic practices, disease control), have already provided conservation benefits, and will continue to do so into the future.

The CRMP group has completed numerous successful restoration actions to improve habitat conditions and reestablish natural populations and spawning runs of ELRT within the Pine Creek watershed since 1989. Restoration actions include, but are not limited to: Improving grazing practices, replacing culverts to increase fish passage, and attempting to remove nonnative brook trout from Bogard Spring Creek. A summary of the restoration actions is shown in Table 2 of the Services ELRT Species Report (Service 2016, pp. 45-54). Through the conservation strategy, CDFW has successfully implemented ELRT health monitoring for disease control at the hatcheries, and adjusted hatchery operations, propagation efforts, fish stocking practices, and fish passage strategies to benefit natural populations and spawning runs of ELRT in Pine Creek. Based on the successful track record of numerous parties implementing these conservation actions together, we conclude that ongoing implementation of those actions is removing or reducing identified stressors to the subspecies or its habitat.

Finding

Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial information pertaining to the five factors, we find that the stressors acting on the subspecies and its habitat, either singly or in combination, are not of sufficient imminence, intensity, or magnitude to indicate that ELRT (Oncorhynchus mykiss aquilarum) is in danger of extinction throughout all of its range (an endangered species), or likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future (a threatened species). Populations of ELRT are improving due to past conservation actions and ongoing efforts to re-establish and increase naturally occurring populations. Current and ongoing habitat management and restoration activities for ELRT have made substantial progress since their inception and are continuing into the future.

We also considered whether the ELRT is threatened or endangered throughout a significant portion of its range. We evaluated the current range of the ELRT to determine if there is any apparent geographic concentration of potential threats for the ELRT. The ranges for naturally occurring populations of ELRT are relatively small and limited to the watershed for where they are found, unless they are stocked by CDFW in Eagle Lake and other areas due to artificial propagation. We also examined potential stressors throughout the range of the ELRT. Because the distribution of the subspecies is generally limited to Eagle Lake and the Pine Creek watershed, and the stressors are similar and essentially uniform throughout the range, we found no portion of the range that could qualify as a significant portion of the ELRT's range and no concentration of stressors that suggests that the ELRT may be in danger of extinction, or likely to become in danger of extinction, in any portion of its range. Therefore, we find that listing the ELRT as an endangered or a threatened species throughout all of or a significant portion of its range is not warranted at this time.

This document constitutes the Service's 12-month finding on the petition to list the ELRT as an endangered or threatened species and fulfills our settlement obligation. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the ELRT Petition Finding's Supporting Document (see ADDRESSES, above).

Ichetucknee Siltsnail (Floridobia mica)Previous Federal Actions

On April 20, 2010, we received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), Alabama Rivers Alliance, Clinch Coalition, Dogwood Alliance, Gulf Restoration Network, Tennessee Forests Council, West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, Tierra Curry, and Noah Greenwald (referred to as the “CBD petition”) requesting that the Service consider for listing as either endangered or threatened 404 species in the southeastern United States, including the Ichetucknee siltsnail, that were ranked as G1 or G2 by the organization NatureServe; as near threatened or worse by the International Union for Conservation of Nature; or as a species of concern, threatened, or endangered by the American Fisheries Society. The Service issued 90-day findings on September 27, 2011 (76 FR 59836), in response to the petition and concluded that the petition presented substantial information indicating that the listing of 374 species (including the Ichetucknee siltsnail) under the Act “may be warranted.” On June 17, 2014, CBD filed a complaint against the Service to compel the Service to issue a 12-month finding as to whether the listing of the Ichetucknee siltsnail is warranted, not warranted, or warranted but precluded. The complaint was resolved on September 22, 2014, when the U.S. District Court approved a settlement agreement between the Service and CBD, including a commitment for the Service to submit a 12-month finding for the Ichetucknee siltsnail to the Federal Register by June 30, 2016.

Background

The Ichetucknee siltsnail (Floridobia mica) is a freshwater snail in the phylum Mollusca, order Littorinimorpha, and family Hydrobiidae and is a distinct species. This snail is small with a shell that is between 2.0 and 2.3 millimeters (0.08 to 0.09 inches) in length. The Ichetucknee siltsnail is known in only one locality; it is endemic to Coffee Springs, a small spring located within Ichetucknee Springs State Park along the west bank of the Ichetucknee River about 1.6 kilometers (1.0 mile) northeast of U.S. Highway 27 in Suwannee County, Florida. Coffee Springs is a third magnitude spring with a flow of 2.83 cubic feet per second (cfs) and a pool area between 364 square meters (m2; 3,918 square feet (ft2)) and 19 m2 (205 ft2). The spring is open and continuous with the Ichetucknee River. The siltsnail exists throughout the entire spring in varying densities, and they are found in nearly all habitat types within the spring. Little is known about the Ichetucknee siltsnail's biology and behavior, as there has not been a comprehensive study of the species. However, some of the life history of the genus Floridobia has been described. Most Floridobia snails have a lifespan of 1 to 2 years, and the sexes are dioecious (separate). Reproduction is sexual and occurs throughout the year, and females may be either oviparous (egg-laying) or ovoviviparous (live birth after eggs hatch inside the body). The females are larger than the males, and the ratio of females to males tends to be greater. Floridobia are found in greater abundance closer to spring heads, where the water temperature and flow are steady and where dissolved oxygen levels are low. Abundance decreases farther from the spring head, and population size seems to be influenced by the substrates available in the springs as well as by spring velocity, presence of macrophytes and algae mats, and flood frequency. Abundance is positively associated with the amount of available shading. Floridobia are prey to some small fishes; however, the role of predators on the population size is unknown. Floridobia graze on detritus and periphyton/biofilm. While a toxicity test has not been performed on the Ichetucknee siltsnail, it is likely it would be sensitive to contaminants, as studies on other Hydrobiidae snails have shown low tolerance to contaminants.

Summary of Status Review

The CBD petition identified recreation as the primary threat to the Ichetucknee siltsnail and also identified aquifer withdrawal (groundwater depletion), saltwater intrusion within karst habitats, groundwater contamination and water pollution, small population size effects, and lack of regulatory mechanisms in place to protect this snail as potential stressors to the species. The Service examined these potential stressors indicated by CBD, as well as the potential for contaminant spills, development and land use, nonnative species, and the effects of climate change as potential stressors to this species. After examining these potential stressors under a five-factor analysis, we found that they are not actual stressors to the Ichetucknee siltsnail at this time.

CBD indicated that recreation was the biggest threat, as recreational activities on the adjacent Ichetucknee River will cause habitat degradation and destruction. However, the Ichetucknee State Park (Park) has fenced off Coffee Springs from the Ichetucknee River to prevent any such disturbance to snail habitat. The Park also is implementing a management plan that includes monitoring and protecting this species. Under this plan, Coffee Springs is periodically monitored and inspected to ensure that no damage to the habitat occurs and that there have been no changes to the habitat of the siltsnail or the surrounding areas. Protective fencing and signage in the area of Coffee Springs is also being maintained.

Groundwater depletion was identified by CBD as a threat; however, it is not expected to affect the population of siltsnails despite a flow deficit on the Ichetucknee River. In addition, minimum flows and levels (MFLs) for the Lower Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers and priority springs areas, including Coffee Springs, have been established by the Suwannee River Water Management District (SRWMD) and an MFL recovery or prevention strategy has been put into place that is expected to raise the flows and levels so that they will not fall below the established minimums and, therefore, we do not anticipate future negative effects on the species that would rise to the population level. Although identified by CBD, there is no evidence of saltwater intrusion occurring in Coffee Springs or on the Ichetucknee River that would affect the Ichetucknee siltsnail. There is a concern for groundwater contamination and water pollution through increasing nitrate levels in the Ichetucknee spring system based on samples taken within the springs since the 1940s. However, these changes have been very gradual, and any future changes are also expected to occur very slowly. Currently, exposure to increased nitrate levels does not appear to be having a negative effect on the Ichetucknee siltsnail. Additionally, Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) has been implementing a basin management action plan (BMAP) since February of 2012, for the management of total maximum daily load (TMDL) for nitrates in the water systems of the Ichetucknee River and Santa Fe River basins, which includes the Ichetucknee River and spring system, and water quality is expected to improve over time. There is a buffer of State park land ranging from 500 to 1,700 m (5,381.96 to 18,298.65 ft) wide surrounding both sides of the river at and upstream of Coffee Springs. Therefore, contaminant spills are unlikely to occur on the protected State park property and are therefore not considered a likely stressor to the Ichetucknee siltsnail or its habitat. Development and land use are also not stressors, because Coffee Springs is located entirely within a protected zone in the State park land where development and other uses are excluded.

While nonnative species can sometimes result in the loss and decline of a native species, and two nonnative species were identified in the Ichetucknee River, neither of the nonnative species was identified within Coffee Springs, nor were they shown to be colonizing the adjacent Ichetucknee River in high numbers. The best available information indicates that nonnative species are not affecting the Ichetucknee siltsnail at the species level now, nor do we have indication that they will in the future. While climate change has the potential to affect habitat used by this species, much uncertainty remains regarding which habitat attributes may be affected, and the timing, magnitude, and rate of change. Based on this variability and uncertainty of the effects of climate change on the Ichetucknee siltsnail within its range, we cannot reasonably determine that the effects of climate change are likely to be a threat to the species now or in the foreseeable future. Small population size effects are one of the reasons the Ichetucknee siltsnail was identified under the CBD petition as a species at risk for extinction. However, the known distribution of the species has always been limited and small, and the population within the spring appears to be healthy and abundant, has persisted in this location, and does not appear to be negatively affected at the population level by the potential stressors identified in the CBD petition or by the potential stressors we identified. In addition, measures are in place to protect or monitor both the habitat and the population. The CBD petition did not identify overutilization, disease, or predation as threats to the species, and the best available scientific and commercial information does not indicate that these stressors are negatively affecting the Ichetucknee siltsnail, or that they are likely to do so in the foreseeable future.

The existing regulatory mechanisms we examined are reducing, and likely to continue reducing, the stressors. There are a number of laws that set standards for clean water generally such as the Clean Water Act of 1972 (CWA; 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (SDWA; 42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.). The CWA and SDWA are in place to protect water quality such that it will be supportive of aquatic wildlife. State regulatory mechanisms in place include protections of the Ichetucknee River and springs under designation as class III waters and as Outstanding Florida Waters. Both of these designations ensure protection of water quality in the groundwater, springs, and surface waters of the Ichetucknee River and spring system and are therefore also protective of the habitat used by the Ichetucknee siltsnail. The SRWMD has included consideration of the Ichetucknee siltsnail within its established MFLs, and the Park has included the management and protection of snail habitat within its park management plan. FDEP has enacted a BMAP for the management of TMDLs for nitrates in the water systems of the Ichetucknee River and Santa Fe River basins. While this is not specifically designed to alleviate stressors on the Ichetucknee siltsnail, its purpose is to ensure that TMDLs within the Ichetucknee River and spring system are monitored and managed.

In making our 12-month finding on the petition, we consider and evaluate the best available scientific and commercial information. This evaluation includes information from all sources, including State, Federal, tribal, academic, and private entities and the public. After evaluating the best available scientific and commercial information on all potential stressors acting individually or in combination, we found no information to indicate that the combined effects are causing a population-level decline or currently degrading habitat of the species or that they are likely to do so in the foreseeable future.

Finding

We examined potential threats to the Ichetucknee siltsnail from development, recreation, groundwater withdrawal, nonnative species, environmental contaminants, overutilization, disease or predation, the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, small population size, and the effects of climate change. The population is now the largest it has ever been and appears to have been stable since 1968. After evaluating the best available scientific and commercial information, we found no evidence that these potential stressors are acting on, or having a negative impact on, the Ichetucknee siltsnail. In addition, the State continues to manage the site to protect both the habitat and the species.

Because the Ichetucknee siltsnail is only known from one location (Coffee Springs), there is no portion of the species' range where potential threats are significantly concentrated or substantially greater than in other portions of its range. Therefore, we find that factors affecting the Ichetucknee siltsnail are essentially uniform throughout its range, indicating no portion of the range is likely to be in danger of extinction or likely to become so. Therefore, no portion warrants further consideration to determine whether the species may be endangered or threatened in a significant portion of its range.

Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial information pertaining to the five factors, we find that the stressors, even when considered cumulatively, are not of sufficient imminence, intensity, or magnitude to indicate that the Ichetucknee siltsnail is in danger of extinction (endangered), or likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future (threatened), throughout all of its range or any significant portion of its range. Therefore, we find that listing the Ichetucknee siltsnail as an endangered or threatened species under the Act is not warranted at this time.

This document constitutes the Service's 12-month finding on the April 20, 2010, petition to list the Ichetucknee siltsnail as an endangered or threatened species and fulfills our settlement obligation. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the Ichetucknee Siltsnail Petition Finding's Supporting Document (see ADDRESSES, above).

New Information

We request that you submit any new information concerning the status of, or stressors to, the Eagle Lake rainbow trout or the Ichetucknee siltsnail to the appropriate person, as specified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, whenever it becomes available. New information will help us monitor these species and encourage their conservation. If an emergency situation develops for either of these species, we will act to provide immediate protection.

References Cited

Lists of the references cited in the petition findings are available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the appropriate person, as specified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Authors

The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the Unified Listing Team, Ecological Services Program.

Authority

The authority for this section is section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION:

Proposed rule; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

We, NMFS, are issuing a proposed rule to remove the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin canary rockfish (Sebastes pinniger) Distinct Population Segment (DPS) from the Federal List of Threatened and Endangered Species and remove its critical habitat designation as recommended in the recent five-year review under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We propose these actions based on newly obtained genetic information that demonstrates that the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin canary rockfish population does not meet the DPS criteria and therefore does not qualify for listing under the ESA.

We also propose to update and amend the listing description for the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin yelloweye rockfish (S. ruberrimus) DPS based on a geographic description to include fish within specified boundaries. Further, although the current listing description is not based on boundaries, with this proposal we are also correcting a descriptive boundary for the DPS depicted on maps to include an area in the northern Johnstone Strait and Queen Charlotte Channel in waters of Canada consistent with newly obtained genetic information on yelloweye rockfish population grouping.

We also propose to update and amend the listing description for the bocaccio DPS based on a geographic description and to include fish within specified boundaries.

DATES:

Information and comments on the subject action must be received by September 6, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

Reference materials supporting this rulemaking can be obtained via the Internet at: http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/ or by submitting a request to Dan Tonnes, Protected Resources Division, West Coast Region, National Marine Fisheries Service, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle WA, 98115.

You may submit comments, identified by the code: NOAA-NMFS-2016-0070 by either of the following methods:

Instructions: You must submit comments by one of the above methods to ensure that we receive, document, and consider them. Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on http://www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. We will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

We have been petitioned several times to list various “DPSs” of rockfish in the Puget Sound region. In response to a petition in 1999, we conducted a status review of brown rockfish, copper rockfish, and quillback rockfish (Stout et al. 2001). During this status review, the Biological Review Team (BRT) that we established determined that the available genetic information for each species demonstrated population structure and supported a determination of discreteness as defined by the joint NMFS and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 1996 DPS Policy (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). Based on this examination, the BRT identified a DPS for each of the three rockfish species in Puget Sound proper that can be considered a species under the ESA, and concluded that none of the identified DPSs were at risk of extinction (Stout et al. 2001).

On April 9, 2007, we received a petition from Mr. Sam Wright (Olympia, Washington) to list DPSs of five rockfish species (yelloweye, canary, bocaccio, greenstriped and redstripe) in Puget Sound, as endangered or threatened species under the ESA and to designate critical habitat. We found that this petition did not present substantial scientific or commercial information to suggest that the petitioned actions may be warranted (72 FR 56986; October 5, 2007). On October 29, 2007, we received a letter from Mr. Wright presenting information that was not included in the April 2007 petition, and requesting reconsideration of the decision not to initiate a review of the species' status. We considered the supplemental information as a new petition and concluded that there was enough information in this new petition to warrant conducting status reviews of these five rockfish species. The status review was initiated on March 17, 2008 (73 FR 14195) and completed in 2010 (Drake et al. 2010).

In the 2010 status review, the BRT used the best scientific and commercial data available at that time, including environmental and ecological features of the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin, but noted that the limited genetic and demographic data for the five petitioned rockfish species populations created some uncertainty in the DPS determinations (Drake et al. 2010). The BRT assessed genetic data from the Strait of Georgia (inside waters of eastern Vancouver Island) for yelloweye rockfish (Yamanaka et al. 2006), that indicated a distinct genetic cluster that differed consistently from coastal samples of yelloweye rockfish, but also observed that genetic data from Puget Sound were not available for this species. The BRT also noted there was genetic information for canary rockfish (Wishard et al. 1980) and bocaccio (Matala et al. 2004, Field et al. 2009) in coastal waters, but no genetic data for either species from inland Puget Sound waters. The BRT found that in spite of these data limitations there was other evidence to conclude that each noted population of rockfish within inland waters of the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin was discrete from its coastal counterpart. Specifically, the BRT noted similar life histories of rockfish and based their determinations, in part, on the status review of brown rockfish, copper rockfish, and quillback rockfish (Stout et al. 2001) and the genetic information for those species that supported separate DPSs for inland compared to coastal populations (Drake et al. 2010). Thus, based on information related to rockfish life history, genetic variation among populations, and the environmental and ecological features of Puget Sound and the Georgia Basin, the BRT identified Puget Sound/Georgia Basin DPSs for yelloweye rockfish, canary rockfish, and bocaccio, and a Puget Sound proper DPS for greenstriped rockfish and redstripe rockfish (Drake et al. 2010).

Informed by the BRT recommendations and our interpretation of best available scientific and commercial data, on April 28, 2010, we listed the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin DPSs of yelloweye rockfish and canary rockfish as threatened under the ESA, and the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin DPS of bocaccio as endangered (75 FR 22276). The final critical habitat rule for the listed DPSs of rockfishes was published in the Federal Register on November 1, 2014 (79 FR 68041). We determined that greenstriped rockfish (S. elongatus) and redstripe rockfish (S. proriger) within Puget Sound proper each qualified as a DPS, but these DPSs were not at risk of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of their ranges (Drake et al. 2010).

In 2013, we appointed a recovery team and initiated recovery planning for the listed rockfish species. Through the process of recovery planning, priority research and recovery actions emerged. One such action was to seek specific genetic data for each of these rockfish species to better evaluate and determine whether differences exist in the genetic structure of the listed species' populations between inland basins where the DPSs occur and the outer coast.

In 2014 and 2015, we partnered with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, several local fishing guides, and Puget Sound Anglers to collect samples and compare the genetic structure of the species' populations between the different basins of the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin DPSs area and the outer coast.

In 2015, we announced a five-year review (80 FR 6695; February 6, 2015) for the three rockfish DPSs. The five-year review was completed on May 5, 2016 (NMFS 2016), and is available at: http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/protected_species/other/rockfish/5.5.2016_5yr_review_report_rockfish.pdf. To complete the review, we collected, evaluated, and incorporated all information on the species that has become available since April 2010, the date of the listing, including the 2014 final critical habitat designation and the newly obtained genetic information. This newly obtained genetic information and the five-year review inform the conclusions in this proposed rule.

Policies for Delineating and Listing Species Under the ESA

Under the ESA, the term “species” means a species, a subspecies, or a DPS of a vertebrate species (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A joint NMFS-USFWS policy clarifies the Services' interpretation of the phrase “Distinct Population Segment,” or DPS (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). The DPS Policy requires the consideration of two elements when evaluating whether a vertebrate population segment qualifies as a DPS under the ESA: (1) Discreteness of the population segment in relation to the remainder of the species/taxon; and, if discrete, (2) the significance of the population segment to the species/taxon to which it belongs. Thus, under the DPS policy a population segment is considered a DPS if it is both discrete from other populations within its taxon and significant to its taxon.

A population may be considered discrete if it satisfies either one of the following conditions: (1) It is markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors; or (2) it is delimited by international governmental boundaries within which differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the ESA (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). According to the policy, quantitative measures of genetic or morphological discontinuity can be used to provide evidence for item (1) below.

A population may be considered significant if it satisfies any one of the following conditions: (1) Persistence of the discrete segment in an ecological setting unusual or unique for the taxon; (2) evidence that loss of the discrete segment would result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon; (3) evidence that the discrete segment represents the only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historical range; or 4) evidence that the discrete segment differs markedly from other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics.

The ESA gives us clear authority to make listing determinations and to revise the Federal list of endangered and threatened species to reflect these determinations. Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA authorizes us to determine by regulation whether “any species,” which is defined to include species, subspecies, and DPSs, is an endangered species or a threatened species based on certain factors. Review of a species' status may be commenced at any time, either on the Services' own initiative—through a status review or in connection with a five-year review under Section 4(c)(2)—or in response to a petition. Because a DPS is not a scientifically recognized entity, but rather one created under the language of the ESA and effectuated through our DPS Policy (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996), we have some discretion to determine whether populations of a species should be identified as DPSs and, based upon their range and propensity for movement, what boundaries should be recognized for a DPS. Section 4(c)(1) of the ESA gives us authority to update the Federal list of threatened and endangered species to reflect these determinations. This can include revising the list to remove a species or reclassify the listed entity.

Under sections 4(c)(1) and 4(a)(1) of the ESA, the Secretary shall undertake a five-year review of a listed species and consider, among other things, whether a species' listing status should be continued. Pursuant to implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d), a species shall be removed from the list if the Secretary of Commerce determines, based on the best scientific and commercial data available after conducting a review of the species' status, that the species is no longer threatened or endangered because of one or a combination of the section 4(a)(1) factors. A species may be delisted only if such data substantiate that it is neither endangered nor threatened for one or more of the following reasons:

(1) Extinction. Unless all individuals of the listed species had been previously identified and located, and were later found to be extirpated from their previous range, a sufficient period of time must be allowed before delisting to indicate clearly that the species is extinct.

(2) Recovery. The principal goal of the Services is to return listed species to a point at which protection under the ESA is no longer required. A species may be delisted on the basis of recovery only if the best scientific and commercial data available indicate that it is no longer endangered or threatened.

(3) Original data for classification in error. Subsequent investigations may show that the best scientific or commercial data available when the species was listed, or the interpretation of such data, were in error (50 CFR 424.11(d)).

To address the need for specific genetic data from yelloweye rockfish, canary rockfish and bocaccio within the inland Puget Sound/Georgia Basin area to compare to genetic data from rockfish in coastal areas as defined during recovery planning, we collected biological samples for genetic analysis several ways. Over the course of 74 fishing trips, biological samples were gathered from listed rockfishes using hook-and-line recreational fishing methods in Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Additional samples were gathered from archived sources from Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center's Fisheries Resource Division, and the NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center's West Coast groundfish bottom trawl survey. Samples collected from these sources were used to examine the population structure for each species. Population structure was examined using three methods: principal components analysis, calculation of FST (fixation index; measure of population differentiation) among geographic groups, and a population genetics based model clustering analysis (termed STRUCTURE) (NMFS 2016).

NMFS' Puget Sound/Georgia Basin rockfish BRT reviewed the results from the new genetic information. Their recommendations (Ford 2015) informed and were further evaluated during the five-year review. The results are summarized below.

Yelloweye Rockfish Findings

Several different analytical methods indicated significant genetic differentiation between the inland and coastal samples of yelloweye rockfish at a level consistent with the limited genetic data for this species (Yamanaka et al. 2006) that were available at the time of the 2010 status review. The BRT concluded that these new data represent the best available science and commercial data and are consistent with and confirm the existence of an inland population of Puget Sound/Georgia Basin yelloweye rockfish that is discrete from coastal yelloweye rockfish (Ford 2015). In addition, yelloweye rockfish from Hood Canal were genetically differentiated from other Puget Sound/Georgia Basin fish, indicating a previously unknown degree of population differentiation within the DPS.

The BRT also found that new genetic information from Canada demonstrates that yelloweye rockfish occurring in the northern Johnstone Strait and Queen Charlotte Channel clustered genetically with yelloweye rockfish occurring in the northern Strait of Georgia, the San Juan Islands, and Puget Sound. This is consistent with additional genetic analysis identifying a population of yelloweye rockfish inside the waters of eastern Vancouver Island (Yamanaka et. al. 2006, COSEWIC 2008, Yamanaka et al. 2012, Seigle et al. 2013). Based on this information and the five-year review, this proposed rule would correct the previous description of the northern boundary of the threatened Puget Sound/Georgia Basin yelloweye rockfish (S. ruberrimus) DPS to include this area. This proposed rule would also update and amend the description of the DPS as fish residing within certain boundaries (including this geographic area farther north in the Strait of Georgia waters in Canada). We propose this change because this description better aligns with yelloweye rockfish life-history and their sedentary behavior as adults, rather than the current description of fish originating from the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin.

Canary Rockfish Findings

These same analytical methods were used to analyze population structure in canary rockfish. These current analyses indicate a lack of genetic differentiation of canary rockfish between coastal and inland Puget Sound/Georgia Basin samples. FST values, a metric of population differentiation, among groups were not significantly different from zero among geographic regions, and STRUCTURE analysis did not provide evidence supporting population structure in the data. None of these analyses provided any evidence of genetic differentiation between canary rockfish along the coast from the canary rockfish within the boundaries of the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin DPS (NMFS 2016).

The BRT noted that the very large number of loci provided considerable power to detect differentiation among sample groups and concluded that the lack of such differentiation indicated that it is unlikely that the inland Puget Sound/Georgia Basin samples are discrete from coastal areas (Ford 2015). In the context of this newly obtained genetic information, the BRT considered whether other factors that supported the original discreteness determination, such as oceanography and ecological differences among locations, continue to support a finding of discreteness for this population. In considering this newly obtained genetic data in the context of the other evidence, the BRT found that their original interpretation of the scientific data informing discreteness is no longer supported. Rather, they concluded that the lack of genetic differentiation indicates sufficient dispersal to render a discreteness determination based on environmental factors implausible. The BRT found that current genetic data evaluated and interpreted in the context of all available scientific information now provides strong evidence that canary rockfish of the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin are not discrete from coastal area canary rockfish. Based on the BRT findings, the five-year review, and best available science and commercial information, and in accordance with the DPS policy, we have determined that the canary rockfish of the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin do not meet the criteria to be considered a DPS. The new genetic data reveal that canary rockfish of the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin are part of the larger population occupying the Pacific Coast. Canary rockfish of the Pacific Coast was declared overfished in 2000 and a rebuilding plan under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act was put in place in 2001. NMFS determined the stock to be “rebuilt” in 2015 (Thorson and Wetzel 2015, NMFS 2016).

Based on the discussion above and the recommendation of the five-year review, we are proposing to remove Puget Sound/Georgia Basin canary rockfish from the Federal List of Threatened and Endangered Species because the new genetic data evaluated and interpreted in the context of all best available science indicate they are not a discrete population. Under section 4(c)(1) of the ESA and the implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d)(3), we may propose to delist canary rockfish if, among other things, subsequent investigation demonstrates that our interpretation of best scientific or commercial information was in error. After considering this newly obtained genetic data in the context of the other evidence supporting discreteness, we determined that our original interpretation of discreteness for Puget Sound/Georgia Basin canary rockfish is no longer supported and was in error. Based on this reasoning, there is no need for a post-delisting monitoring plan.

Bocaccio Findings

Bocaccio are rare within the DPS area and we were able to obtain only a few samples of them in the genetic study. Because of their rarity, the genetic analysis for bocaccio included only two samples from within the DPS area, and this is not sufficient information to change our prior status review determination that Puget Sound/Georgia Basin bocaccio are discrete from coastal fish (Ford, 2015).

The BRT noted that bocaccio have a propensity for greater adult movement than more benthic rockfish species, similar to the case for canary rockfish. The BRT considered that the lack of genetic differentiation between coastal and Puget Sound/Georgia Basin canary rockfish might suggest a similar lack of genetic differentiation for bocaccio because of similarities in the life history of the two species. However, the BRT concluded that the new information was not sufficient to change the conclusions of the previous BRT documented in Drake et al. (2010). This is consistent with the five-year review recommendation (NMFS 2016) and is based upon best available scientific data and commercial information.

Similar to yelloweye rockfish, we propose to update and amend the listing description of the bocaccio DPS to describe boundaries to include fish residing within the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin rather than fish originating from the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin.

Effects of the New Determinations

Based on the new information and the BRT's determination, we propose that Puget Sound/Georgia Basin canary rockfish be removed from the Federal List of Threatened and Endangered Species. The Puget Sound/Georgia Basin yelloweye rockfish DPS shall remain threatened under the ESA, and the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin bocaccio DPS shall remain endangered.

We also propose to remove designated critical habitat for canary rockfish. The critical habitat designation for the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio DPSs will remain in place. The area removed as designated critical habitat for canary rockfish will continue to be designated critical habitat for bocaccio and, thus, there will be no change to the spatial area that was originally designated. Maps of critical habitat can be found on our Web site at http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov and in the final critical habitat rule (79 FR 68041; November 13, 2014).

Additionally, we propose to update and amend the listing description of the yelloweye rockfish DPS to define geographical boundaries including an area farther north of the Johnstone Strait in Canada (Figure 1). This boundary would not have an effect on critical habitat, because we do not designate critical habitat outside U.S. territory.

BILLING CODE 3510-22-PEP06JY16.000BILLING CODE 3510-22-C

If the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin canary rockfish DPS is delisted, then the requirements under section 7 of the ESA would no longer apply. Federal agencies would be relieved of the need to consult with us on their actions that may affect Puget Sound/Georgia Basin canary rockfish and their designated critical habitat and to insure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of canary rockfish or adversely modify their critical habitat. ESA section 7 consultation requirements will remain in place for the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin yelloweye rockfish and bocaccio DPSs. Recovery planning efforts will continue for these listed DPSs as well.

References Cited

The complete citations for the references used in this document can be obtained by contacting NMFS (See ADDRESSES and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) or on our Web page at: http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov.

Information Quality Act and Peer Review

In December 2004, OMB issued a Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review pursuant to the Information Quality Act. The Bulletin was published in the Federal Register on January 14, 2005 (70 FR 2664). The Bulletin established minimum peer review standards, a transparent process for public disclosure of peer review planning, and opportunities for public participation with regard to certain types of information disseminated by the Federal Government. Peer review under the OMB Peer Review Bulletin ensures that our listing determinations are based on the best available scientific and commercial information. Prior to a final rule, and during the public comment period, NMFS will solicit the expert opinions of three qualified specialists selected from the academic and scientific community, Federal and state agencies, or the private sector to review our five-year review and underlying science supporting this action, to ensure the best biological and commercial information is being used in the decision-making process.

ClassificationNational Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the information that may be considered when assessing species for listing. Based on this limitation of criteria for a listing decision and the opinion in Pacific Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 657 F. 2d 829 (6th Cir. 1981), we have concluded that NEPA does not apply to ESA listing actions. (See NOAA Administrative Order 216-6.)

As noted in the Conference Report on the 1982 amendments to the ESA, economic impacts cannot be considered when assessing the status of a species. Therefore, the economic analysis requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act are not applicable to the listing process. In addition, this proposed rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. This proposed rule does not contain a collection of information requirement for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Executive Order 13122, Federalism

In accordance with E.O. 13132, we determined that this proposed rule does not have significant federalism effects and that a federalism assessment is not required. In keeping with the intent of the Administration and Congress to provide continuing and meaningful dialogue on issues of mutual state and Federal interest, this proposed rule will be shared with the relevant state agencies in Washington state.

The Advisory Committee on Voluntary Foreign Aid (ACVFA) brings together USAID and private voluntary organization officials, representatives from universities, international nongovernment organizations, U.S. businesses, and government, multilateral, and private organizations to foster understanding, communication, and cooperation in the area of foreign aid.

Agenda

USAID Administrator Gayle Smith will make opening remarks, followed by panel discussions among ACVFA members and USAID leadership on Ending Preventable Child & Maternal Deaths. The full meeting agenda will be forthcoming on the ACVFA Web site at http://www.usaid.gov/who-we-are/organization/advisory-committee.

Stakeholders

The meeting is free and open to the public. Registration information will be forthcoming on the ACVFA Web site at http://www.usaid.gov/who-we-are/organization/advisory-committee.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jayne Thomisee, acvfa@usaid.gov.

Dated: June 29, 2016.Jayne Thomisee,Executive Director & Policy Advisor, U.S. Agency for International Development.[FR Doc. 2016-15954 Filed 7-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE PDEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURERe-Establishment of the Council for Native American Farming and RanchingAGENCY:

Office of the Secretary, USDA.

ACTION:

Notice and call for nominations.

SUMMARY:

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is announcing the re-establishment of the advisory Council for Native American Farming and Ranching (Council). The purpose of this advisory council is to provide recommendations to the Secretary on how to eliminate barriers to Native American participation in USDA programs. The Council will discuss issues related to the participation of Native American farmers and ranchers in USDA programs and transmit recommendations concerning any changes to regulations or internal guidance or other measures. The Council is necessary and in the public interest. The USDA is seeking nominations for individuals to be considered Council members. Candidates who wish to be considered for membership on the Council for Native American Farmers and Ranchers should submit an AD-755 application form and resume to the Secretary of Agriculture. Cover letters should be addressed to the Secretary of Agriculture. The application form can be found at: http://www.usda.gov/documents/OCIO_AD_755_Master_2012.pdf.

DATES:

Submit nominations on or before August 22, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

All nomination materials should be mailed in a single, complete package and postmarked by [Insert date 45 days after the date of publication of this Federal Register notice]. All nominations for membership should be sent to: Thomas Vilsack, Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20250, Attention: Council on Native American Farmers and Ranchers. Send comments to the Office of Tribal Relations, 500A Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250.

In accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Council Act (FACA) as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 2) and with the concurrence of the General Services Administration, the Department of Agriculture (USDA) is announcing the re-establishment of the advisory Council for Native American Farmers and Ranchers (Council). The Council is a discretionary advisory council that operates under the provisions of the FACA and reports to the Secretary of Agriculture. The purpose of this Council is: (1) To advise the Secretary of Agriculture on issues related to the participation of Native American farmers and ranchers in USDA programs; (2) to transmit recommendations concerning any changes to regulations or internal guidance or other measures that would eliminate barriers to program participation for Native American farmers and ranchers; (3) to examine methods of maximizing the number of new farming and ranching opportunities created through enhanced extension, sound conservation practices, targeted rural business services, and financial literacy services; (4) to examine methods of encouraging intergovernmental cooperation to mitigate the effects of land tenure and probate issues on the delivery of USDA programs; (5) to evaluate other methods of creating new farming or ranching opportunities for Native American producers; and (6) to address other Native American related issues as deemed appropriate.

The Council has 15 members, 11 of whom will be Native American leaders or persons who represent the interests of Native American tribes or Native American organizations. The term “Native American leaders” is not limited to elected Tribal representatives or members or persons with Native American ancestry. The remaining four members are the following high-ranking USDA officials: (1), Director, Office of Tribal Relations; (2), Administrator, Farm Service Agency; (3), Chief, Natural Resources and Conservation Services; and (4) Assistant Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights.

Members serve without compensation, but may receive reimbursement for travel expenses and per diem in accordance with USDA travel regulations for attendance at Council functions. Council members who represent the interests of Native American farmers and ranchers may also be paid an amount not less than $100 per day for time spent away from their employment or farming or ranching operation, subject to the availability of funds. Members may include:

(1) Native American farmers or ranchers who have participated in USDA loan, grant, conservation, or payment programs;

(2) Representatives of organizations with a history of working with Native American farmers or ranchers;

(3) Representatives of tribal governments with demonstrated experience working with Native American farmers or ranchers; and

(4) Such other persons as the Secretary considers appropriate.

No individual who is currently registered as a Federal lobbyist is eligible to serve as a member of the Council.

The Secretary of Agriculture invites those individuals, organizations, and groups affiliated with the categories listed above or who have knowledge of issues related to the purpose of the Council to nominate individuals for membership on the Council. Individuals and organizations who wish to nominate experts for this or any other USDA advisory council should submit a letter to the Secretary listing these individuals' names and business address, phone, and email contact information. The Secretary of Agriculture seeks a diverse group of members representing a broad spectrum of persons interested in providing suggestions and ideas on how USDA can tailor its farm programs to meet the needs of Native American farmers and ranchers. Individuals receiving nominations will be contacted and asked to return the AD-755 application form and a resume within 10 business days of notification. All candidates will be vetted and considered for appointment by the Secretary of Agriculture. Equal opportunity practices will be followed in all appointments to the Council in accordance with USDA policies. The Council will meet at least once per fiscal year.

Dated: June 30, 2016.Gregory L. Parham,Assistant Secretary for Administration.[FR Doc. 2016-16099 Filed 7-1-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3410-01-PDEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURERural Housing ServiceNotice of Solicitation of Applications (NOSA) for Loans to Re-Lenders Under the Community Facility Loan Program for Fiscal Year (FY) 2016AGENCY:

Rural Housing Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Notice; applications for Re-lenders.

SUMMARY:

The Rural Housing Service (RHS) has amended the Community Facility Direct Loan regulations to enable the Agency to make loans to qualified Re-lenders who will loan those funds to Applicants primarily for projects in or serving persistent poverty counties or high poverty areas that are eligible under the Community Facility Loan Program.

DATES:

To apply for funds, the Agency must receive a complete application by 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on August 8, 2016.

Availability of Notice: This Notice is available through the USDA Rural Development site at: http://www.rd.usda.gov/newsroom/notices-solicitation-applications-nosas.

I. Funding Opportunity DescriptionA. Purpose

The purpose of this Notice is to seek applications from Re-lenders who would loan those funds to Applicants primarily for projects in or serve persistent poverty counties or high poverty areas that are eligible under the Community Facility (CF) Direct Loan Program.

Type of Awards: Direct Loans will be made to eligible Re-lenders for the purpose of lending these funds to eligible CF applicants for eligible CF purposes in accordance with 7 CFR part 1942.

Fiscal Year Funds: $500 Million of FY 2016 Direct CF Loan funds.

Available Funds: The Agency will make available $500 Million of Direct CF Loan funds to eligible Re-lenders for the purpose of carrying out this notice.

Award Amounts: Direct loans will be made in amounts based upon the availability of $500 Million of CF Direct Loan funds.

Award Dates: Awards will be made on or before September 30, 2016.

III. Definitions

Aeris Financial Strength and Performance Rating—Aeris is ratings system that rates community development financial institutions (CDFI). The Aeris rating methodology is designed for non-depository CDFIs that have a majority of their assets invested in loans (as opposed to real estate, equity, or equity-like investments), and have at least five years of financing history. The Financial Strength and Performance Rating is an assessment conducted by AERIS of the CDFI's overall creditworthiness that is based on an analysis of past financial performance, current financial strength, and apparent risk factors.

Applicant. Those eligible entities described in 7 CFR 1942.17(b)(1) making application to the Re-lender to borrow funds for an eligible Community Facilities project.

Borrower. An Applicant who has received a loan from a Re-lender.

Full Recourse. Notwithstanding any provisions of the loan documents issued by the Re-lender for a Community Facilities project to the contrary, the Re-lender shall be fully and severally liable for the payment and performance of all obligations under the debt instrument issued to the Agency, regardless if the Re-lender and applicant's assets financed by advancing relending funds have been fully liquidated and are inadequate to fully pay the loan amount, accrued interest, and all other related costs the Re-lender is liable for.

High Poverty Area. A census tract with a poverty rate greater than or equal to 20%. Areas that are considered to be High Poverty may be found on the following Web site: http://rdgisportal.sc.egov.usda.gov/home/index.html entitled “High Poverty Targeting.” A project is considered to be located in a High Poverty Area when the structure, equipment, or other hard assets are physically built and/or placed in a High Poverty Area. A project is considered to be serving a High Poverty Area if the physical structure, equipment, or other hard assets serves residents who live in a High Poverty Area.

Irrevocable Letter of Credit. Firm commitment by an issuing bank to pay the Agency a specified sum in a specified currency, provided the conditions included in the Letter of Credit document are met within a specified timeframe. This Letter of Credit cannot be canceled without the Agency's prior written approval.

Letter of Intent. Written documentation, acceptable by the Agency, from a financial institution stating the financial institution will issue an Irrevocable Letter of Credit or similar instrument such as a cash collateral account or prior to any funds being disbursed by the Agency.

Persistent Poverty County(ies). Counties where 20 percent or more of county residents were poor as measured by each of the 1980, 1990, and 2000 censuses, and 2007-11 American Community Survey 5-year average. Counties that are considered to be Persistent Poverty may be found under the map entitled “Persistent Poverty” on the following Web site: http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/county-typology-codes/descriptions-and-maps.aspx#ppov. A project is considered to be located in a Persistent Poverty County when the structure, equipment, or other hard assets are physically built and/or placed in a Persistent Poverty County. A project is considered to be serving Persistent Poverty County(ies) if the physical structure, equipment, or other hard assets serves residents who live in Persistent Poverty County(ies).

Re-lender. Eligible lending institutions under section IV of this Notice who lend funds to eligible Applicants for projects eligible under 7 CFR part 1942.

IV. Eligibility Information

A. Re-Lender Eligibility. Re-lenders must meet each of the following requirements:

(a) Meet the re-lender requirements as outlined in 7 CFR 1942.30;

(b) Demonstrate the legal authority necessary to make and service loans involving community infrastructure and development similar to the type of projects listed in 7 CFR 1942.17(d);

(c) Meet federal, state and local requirements in accordance with 7 CFR 1942.17(k);

(d) Demonstrate that at least 30 percent of its existing portfolio is for projects located in or serving Persistent Poverty County(ies) or High Poverty Areas; or that the Re-lender has at least 3 years of experience making loans for projects located in or serving Persistent Poverty County(ies) or High Poverty Area(s);

(e) Agree to provide adequate collateral, as determined by the Agency, to support the loan request;

(f) Provides a Letter of Intent from a financial institution that an Irrevocable Letter of Credit or similar instrument such as a cash collateral account or performance guarantee acceptable to the Agency will be issued by the financial institution if the Re-lender is approved for funding;

(g) Unless otherwise required in this Notice, agree to provide an Irrevocable Letter of Credit (or similar instrument such as a cash collateral account or a Performance Guarantee) acceptable to the Agency in the minimum amount equal to the principal and interest installments due the Government during the first 5 years of the loan prior to receiving loan disbursements;

(h) Demonstrate one of the following:

(1) Re-lender is regulated and supervised by a Federal or State Banking Regulatory Agency that is subject to credit examination, AND the institution, its subsidiaries, holding companies, and affiliates are not on their respective regulatory agency's watch list and have no regulatory actions outstanding against them; AND such Federal or State Banking Regulatory Agency has certified that the Re-lender has the financial capacity to receive Agency funding. If the Agency doesn't receive the requisite certification from the Federal or State Banking Regulatory Agency, then the Re-lender has not met this criteria. The Agency reserves the right to reduce funding amounts based on information received from the Federal or State Banking Regulatory Agency and based on the agency's determination of available funding or other agency funding priorities; or

(2) Re-lender has an Aeris Financial Strength and Performance Rating of 1 or 2 within the past two years; the achieved rating must indicate financial strength, performance, and risk management practices that consistently provide for safe and sound operations. Re-lender grants the Agency permission to review all documents submitted to Aeris. If Agency reviews such documentation and finds documentation to be insufficient then this criteria has not been met. The Agency reserves the right to reduce funding amounts based on review of such documentation and based on the agency's determination of available funding or other agency funding priorities; or

(3) At the time of application, re-lender provides written documentation, acceptable to the Agency, from a financial institution that an Irrevocable Letter of Credit or similar instrument such as a cash collateral account or a performance guarantee acceptable to the Agency will be issued by the financial institution, if the Re-lender is approved for funding; and the re-lender:

(i) Obtains an Aeris Financial Strength and Performance Rating of 1 or 2 prior to any funds being advanced. Re-lender grants the Agency permission to review all documents submitted to Aeris. If Agency reviews such documentation and finds documentation to be insufficient then this criteria has not been met. The Agency reserves the right to reduce funding amounts based on review of such documentation and based on the agency's determination of available funding or other agency funding priorities; or

(ii) Proves to be a financially sound institution, as determined by the Agency, based on the Agency's risk assessment of the institution's adequate capital, adequate liquidity, management capabilities, repayment ability, credit worthiness, balance sheet equity and other financial factors as determined appropriate. The Agency reserves the right to reduce funding amounts based on review of financial factors and based on the agency's determination of available funding or other agency funding priorities.

(i) Be a legal, non-governmental entity at the time of application (with the exception of Tribal governmental entities);

(j) Be a member of a national organization that provides training, technical assistance and credit evaluation of member organizations, such as FDIC, NCUA or other similar organizations; or be certified by a Government agency as having a primary mission of promoting community development in low-income target markets and perform training and technical assistance as part of that mission; and

(k) Agrees to loan a majority of Agency funds to applicants whose projects are located in or serve Persistent Poverty County(ies) or High Poverty Area(s).

B. Applicant Eligibility. Applicants applying for loans from the Re-lender must meet the eligibility requirements of 7 CFR 1942.17.

C. Project Eligibility.

(a) Facilities must be located in rural areas in accordance with 7 CFR 1942.17(b)(2), and comply with all project eligibility requirements as outlined in 7 CFR part 1942.

(1) Carry out a function customarily provided by a local unit of government;

(2) Be a public improvement needed for orderly development of a rural community;

(3) Not include private affairs, commercial or business undertaking (except for limited authority for industrial parks);

(4) Be operated on a nonprofit basis; and

(5) Be considered the area of jurisdiction or operation for public bodies eligible to receive assistance or a similar local rural service area of a not-for-profit corporation owning and operating an essential community facility. A community may be a small city or town, county, or multi-county area depending on the type of essential community facility involved. The applicant must have the legal authority and responsibility to carry out the project. The term “facility” refers to the physical structure financed or the resulting service provided to rural residents under the CF program.

(c) For essential community facilities, the terms “rural” and “rural area” will not include any area in any city or town with a population in excess of 20,000 inhabitants, according to the latest decennial Census of the United States in accordance with 7 CFR 1942.17(b)(2)(iv).

(d) In accordance with 7 CFR 1942.17(d)(1)(i)(B), essential community facilities are those public improvements requisite to the beneficial and orderly development of a community operated on a nonprofit basis, including but not limited to:

(5) Loan Funds may NOT be used for prohibited purposes listed at 7 CFR 1942.17(d)(2).

V. Application Submission, Evaluation, and Selection Process

A. Application Submission. The forms listed below can be found at: http://forms.sc.egov.usda.gov/eForms/welcomeAction.do?Home. To apply for funds under this Notice, a Re-lender must submit the following items, as applicable:

(a) Its DUNS number. An organization may obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet by calling (1-866-705-5711).

(b) The Re-lender must provide documentation that they are registered in System for Award Management (SAM.gov).

(29) Description of programs, financial and non-financial products and services.

(q) Documentation that the re-lender meets all eligibility requirements listed in this Notice.

(r) Documentation of any evaluation factors listed below that the re-lender wants the Agency to consider.

B. Evaluation. The Agency will score and rank all eligible and complete Re-lender applications based upon the following evaluation factors:

(a) Lending experience and strength of the Re-lender: A Re-lender that has demonstrated experience administering community infrastructure or development loan funds will be awarded points as follows:

(1) More than 10 years of experience: 10 Points;

(2) 5 years of experience but less than or equal to 10 years: 5 Points;

(b) Poverty and project service area. Re-lenders who demonstrate that they have a lending history in Persistent Poverty County(ies) or Poverty Areas:

(1) More than 75% of the Re-Lender's loan portfolio is for projects located in or serve Persistent Poverty County(ies) or High Poverty Area(s): 30 points;

(2) More than 50% of the Re-Lender's loan portfolio is for projects located in or serve Persistent Poverty County(ies) or High Poverty Area(s): 20 points; and

(3) More than 30% of the Re-Lender's loan portfolio is for projects located in or serve Persistent Poverty County (ies) or High Poverty Area(s): 10 points.

(b) Administrator's Discretionary Points:

(c) Up to 10 Administrator points may be awarded to applications that address geographic distribution of funds, emergency conditions caused by economic problems, natural disasters and other initiatives that support the Agency's strategic plan.

C. The Agency will select the highest scoring applications based upon the evaluation factors listed above.

D. If an application that is filed by the application deadline is determined by the Agency to be substantially complete, the Agency will notify the submitter of the elements that are needed to make the application complete and will provide the submitter five calendar days to provide information that fully addresses such elements. If the application is not complete at the end of this five day period, the application will be rejected.

VI. Award Administration InformationA. Award Notices

The Agency will notify Re-Lenders about the status of their applications in the same method as listed in 7 CFR part 1942, subpart A.

Prior to receiving a direct loan from the Agency, eligible Re-Lenders who are chosen to receive funding for the purpose of re-lending must:

(a) Enter into a Re-Lenders Agreement provided by the Agency;

(b) Execute a promissory note;

(c) Provide adequate security satisfactory to the Agency;

(d) Agree to provide the Agency with an irrevocable letter of credit (or similar instrument such as a cash collateral account or a Performance Guarantee) acceptable to the Agency in the minimum amount equal to the principal and interest installments due during the first 5 years of the loan prior to receiving any loan disbursements; and

(e) Meet any other loan conditions imposed by the Agency.

B. Reporting Requirements

(a) The Re-lender must submit the following information to the Agency, after any loan disbursement is made,

(1) On a quarterly basis:

(i) Financial statements;

(ii) List of CF Borrowers, outstanding principal and interest balances for each Borrower;

(iii) Status of CF loan for each Borrower;

(iv) Amount and due date of the next installment due from the Borrower; and

(v) Servicing Actions conducted for each delinquent CF loan.

(2) On an annual basis:

(i) Annual audited financial statement;

(ii) Copy of most recent Financial Strength and Performance Rating which is not more than 3 years old;

(iii) Documentation of Fidelity Bond coverage; and

(iv) Civil Rights data for each Applicant.

C. Planning, bidding, contracting, and construction. Re-lenders must certify to the Agency that the Borrower has met the requirements of 7 CFR 3575.42 and 3575.43 for all planning, bidding, contracting and construction.

(a) The Re-lender will provide the Agency with a written certification at the end of construction that all funds were utilized for authorized purposes. The Re-lender will ensure that designs and construction meet all applicable Federal, State, and local laws.

(1) Architectural and engineering practices. All project facilities must be designed utilizing accepted architectural and engineering practices and must conform to applicable Federal, State, and local codes and requirements. The Re-lender must ensure that the planned project will be completed within the available funds and, once completed, will be suitable for the borrower's needs.

(2) Construction monitoring. The Re-lender will monitor the progress of construction and undertake the reviews and inspections necessary to ensure that construction proceeds in accordance with the approved plans, specifications, and contract documents and that funds are used for eligible project costs.

(3) Equal employment opportunities. For all construction contracts in excess of $10,000, the contractor must comply with Executive Order 11246 entitled “Equal Employment Opportunity” as amended and as supplemented by applicable Department of Labor regulations (41 CFR part 60-1). The Borrower and Re-lender are responsible for ensuring that the contractor complies with these requirements. (RD Forms 400-1 and 400-6 may be used to meet this requirement.)

(4) Americans with Disabilities Act. Projects which involve the construction of, or addition to, facilities that accommodate the public and commercial facilities as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. 12181 et seq.) must comply with that Act. The Re-lender and borrower are responsible for compliance.

(b) Other Federal, State, and local requirements. Borrowers and Re-lenders will be required to comply with any Federal, State, or local laws or regulatory commission rules which affect the project including, but not limited to, those regarding:

(4) Health, safety, and sanitation standards, including seismic safety requirements of Executive Order 12699; and

(5) Protection of the environment and consumer affairs.

D. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental review requirements. NEPA requirements are outlined in 7 CFR 1942.2(b) and part 1970. The re-lender will need to comply with and agree in writing to requirements under the Re-lender Environmental Compliance Agreement. RD Instruction 1970 can be found at: http://www.rd.usda.gov/publications/regulations-guidelines/instructions.

E. Civil Rights. The Re-lender and Borrowers must comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Executive Order 12250, Executive Order 13166 Limited English Proficiency (LEP), and 7 CFR part 1901, subpart E. The re-lender is also subject to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.

(a) The re-lender agrees:

(1) To have each prospective Applicant sign Form RD 400-4, Assurance Agreement, which assures USDA that the recipient is in compliance with title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 7 CFR part 15 and other Agency regulations.

(2) That no person will be discriminated against based on race, color or national origin, in regard to any program or activity for which the re-lender receives Federal financial assistance.

(3) That nondiscrimination statements are in advertisements and brochures.

(4) To collect and maintain data on applicants by race, sex, and national origin of the Applicants and Borrowers, and ensure that the borrowers also collect and maintain the same data on the entities benefiting from those projects.

(5) The projects supported with Agency funds will not cause any adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations.

(6) The Agency will use the above information to complete Civil rights compliance reviews within the first year after the initial loan closing and thereafter at intervals of not more than 3 years until the CF direct loan funds have all been re-lent.

(7) For other Federal, State and Local Requirements, see 7 CFR 1942.17(k).

(8) Any loan funds not disbursed within 5 years of the loan to the Re-Lender will be deobligated and become unavailable for disbursement.

VII. Non-Discrimination Statement

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, familial/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992, submit your completed form or letter to USDA by:

Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY:

On February 26, 2016, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain stilbenic optical brightening agents (OBAs) from Taiwan.1 The period of review (POR) is May 1, 2014, through April 30, 2015. The review covers one producer/exporter of the subject merchandise, Teh Fong Ming International Co., Ltd. (TFM). For the final results, we find that TFM has sold subject merchandise at less than normal value.

On February 26, 2016, the Department published the Preliminary Results of this review in the Federal Register. We invited parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. On March 28, 2016, TFM submitted a case brief. On April 4, 2016, Archroma U.S., Inc., a domestic producer of merchandise, submitted a rebuttal brief. At the request of TFM,2 we held a hearing on May 11, 2016.3 The Department conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

2See letter from TFM dated March 19, 2016.

3See hearing transcript, filed on the record May 17, 2016.

Scope of the Order

The merchandise subject to the Order4 is OBAs and is currently classifiable under subheadings 3204.20.8000, 2933.69.6050, 2921.59.4000 and 2921.59.8090 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). While the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written product description remains dispositive.5

5 A full description of the scope of the Order is contained in the memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents from Taiwan: Issues and Decision Memorandum for Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015” dated concurrently with and hereby adopted by this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

Analysis of the Comments Received

All issues raised in the case brief and rebuttal brief submitted in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted with this notice. A list of the issues raised is attached as an Appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and it is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have not made changes to the Preliminary Results. For a discussion of our analysis of the comments received, see Issues and Decision Memorandum.

Final Results of Review

For the final results of this review, in accordance with sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, we continued to rely on facts available with an adverse inference to establish a rate of 6.19 percent as the weighted-average dumping margin for TFM for the period May 1, 2014, through April 30, 2015. As the Department explained in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, the 6.19 percent rate is the highest applied margin in a separate segment of the same proceeding, and according to 776(c)(2) of the Act, this rate does not require corroboration.6

6See Preliminary Decision Memorandum at 10.

Assessment

The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to apply an ad valorem assessment rate of 6.19 percent to all entries of subject merchandise during the POR which were produced and/or exported by TFM. We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.

Cash Deposit Requirements

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of OBAs from Taiwan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for TFM will be 6.19 percent, the weighted average dumping margin established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for other manufacturers and exporters covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the manufacturer of subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 6.19 percent, the all-others rate established in the less than fair value investigation.7 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

7 The all-others rate established in the Order.

Notification to Importers

This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

Administrative Protective Orders

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: June 27, 2016.Paul Piquado,Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.Appendix—List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision MemorandumSummaryBackgroundScope of the OrderDiscussion of the IssuesComment 1: Questionnaire Original DeadlineComment 2: Hindrance of ProceedingComment 3: Opportunity To Remedy Under the Statute and RegulationsComment 4: Untimely Extension Request Due to Extraordinary CircumstancesComment 5: Per Se Rule Decision MakingComment 6: Focus on Adverse Facts Available (AFA) Rate and Not on Decision To Apply AFAComment 7: Rejection Letter AttachmentComment 8: Addressing the Facts of the CaseComment 9: Neutral Facts AvailableRecommendation[FR Doc. 2016-15834 Filed 7-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-PDEPARTMENT OF COMMERCEInternational Trade AdministrationMeeting of the United States Manufacturing CouncilAGENCY:

International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

ACTION:

Notice of an open meeting.

SUMMARY:

The United States Manufacturing Council (Council) will hold an open meeting via teleconference on Wednesday, July 20, 2016. The Council was established in April 2004 to advise the Secretary of Commerce on matters relating to the U.S. manufacturing industry. The purpose of the meeting is for Council members to review and deliberate on proposed recommendations by the Innovation, Research, and Development Subcommittee focused on the transition of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority. The final agenda will be posted on the Department of Commerce Web site for the Council at http://www.trade.gov/manufacturingcouncil/, at least one week in advance of the meeting.

DATES:

Wednesday, July 20, 12 p.m.-1 p.m. The deadline for members of the public to register, including requests to make comments during the meeting and for auxiliary aids, or to submit written comments for dissemination prior to the meeting, is 5 p.m. EDT on July 12, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held by conference call. The call-in number and passcode will be provided by email to registrants. Requests to register (including to speak or for auxiliary aids) and any written comments should be submitted to: U.S. Manufacturing Council, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4043, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC, 20230; email: archana.sahgal@trade.gov. Members of the public are encouraged to submit registration requests and written comments via email to ensure timely receipt.

Background: The Council advises the Secretary of Commerce on matters relating to the U.S. manufacturing industry.

Public Participation: The meeting will be open to the public and will be accessible to people with disabilities. All guests are required to register in advance by the deadline identified under the DATES caption. Requests for auxiliary aids must be submitted by the registration deadline. Last minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill. There will be fifteen (15) minutes allotted for oral comments from members of the public joining the call. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, the time for public comments may be limited to three (3) minutes per person. Individuals wishing to reserve speaking time during the meeting must submit a request at the time of registration, as well as the name and address of the proposed speaker. If the number of registrants requesting to make statements is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the meeting, the International Trade Administration may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers. Speakers are requested to submit a written copy of their prepared remarks by 5:00 p.m. EDT on July 12, 2016, for inclusion in the meeting records and for circulation to the members of the U.S. Manufacturing Council.

In addition, any member of the public may submit pertinent written comments concerning the Council's affairs at any time before or after the meeting. Comments may be submitted to Archana Sahgal at the contact information indicated above. To be considered during the meeting, comments must be received no later than 5 p.m. EDT on July 12, 2016, to ensure transmission to the Council prior to the meeting. Comments received after that date and time will be distributed to the members but may not be considered on the call. Copies of Council meeting minutes will be available within 90 days of the meeting.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION:

Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.

SUMMARY:

In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that we have issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to The San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) to incidentally harass marine mammals during construction activities associated with the San Francisco Ferry Terminal, South Basin Improvements project in San Francisco, CA.

DATES:

This authorization is effective from June 28, 2016 through December 31, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Laura McCue, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:Availability

An electronic copy of WETA's application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, and the final Environmental Assessment (EA) and our associated Finding of No Significant Impact, prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act may be obtained by visiting the Internet at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.html. In case of problems accessing these documents, please call the contact listed above (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Background

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified area, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals, providing that certain findings are made and the necessary prescriptions are established.

The incidental taking of small numbers of marine mammals may be allowed only if NMFS (through authority delegated by the Secretary) finds that the total taking by the specified activity during the specified time period will (i) have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and (ii) not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such taking must be set forth, either in specific regulations or in an authorization.

The allowance of such incidental taking under section 101(a)(5)(A), by harassment, serious injury, death, or a combination thereof, requires that regulations be established. Subsequently, a Letter of Authorization may be issued pursuant to the prescriptions established in such regulations, providing that the level of taking will be consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under the specific regulations. Under section 101(a)(5)(D), NMFS may authorize such incidental taking by harassment only, for periods of not more than one year, pursuant to requirements and conditions contained within an IHA. The establishment of prescriptions through either specific regulations or an authorization requires notice and opportunity for public comment.

NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “. . . an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.” Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines “harassment” as: “. . . any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].”

Summary of Request

On February 8, 2016, we received a request from WETA for authorization of the taking, by level B harassment only, of marine mammals, incidental to pile driving and removal in association with the San Francisco Ferry Terminal Expansion Project, South Basin Improvements Project in San Francisco Bay, California. That request was modified to include additional species and additional monitoring and mitigation measures on March 28, 2016 and May 2, 2016, and a final version, which we deemed adequate and complete, was submitted on May 13, 2016, which included revised take numbers and additional mitigation measures. In-water work associated with the project is expected to be completed within 23 months. This proposed IHA is for the first phase of construction activities, to occur in 2016.

The use of both vibratory and impact pile driving and removal is expected to produce underwater sound at levels that have the potential to result in behavioral harassment of marine mammals. Seven species of marine mammals have the potential to be affected by the specified activities: harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), California sea lion (Zalophus californianus), Northern elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris), Northern fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus), harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus), and bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus). These species may occur year round in the action area.

The San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) is expanding berthing capacity at the Downtown San Francisco Ferry Terminal (Ferry Terminal), located at the San Francisco Ferry Building (Ferry Building), to support existing and future planned water transit services operated on San Francisco Bay by WETA and WETA's emergency operations.

The Downtown San Francisco Ferry Terminal Expansion Project would eventually include phased construction of three new water transit gates and overwater berthing facilities, in addition to supportive landside improvements, such as additional passenger waiting and queuing areas, circulation improvements, and other water transit-related amenities. The new gates and other improvements would be designed to accommodate future planned water transit services between Downtown San Francisco and Antioch, Berkeley, Martinez, Hercules, Redwood City, Richmond, and Treasure Island, as well as emergency operation needs. According to current planning and operating assumptions, WETA will not require all three new gates (Gates A, F, and G) to support existing and new services immediately. As a result, WETA is planning that project construction will be phased. The first phase will include construction of Gates F and G, as well as other related improvements in the South Basin.

Dates and Duration

The total project is expected to require a maximum of 130 days of in-water pile driving. The project may require up to 23 months for completion; with a maximum of 106 days for pile driving in the first year. In-water activities are limited to occur between June 28, 2016 and November 30, 2016 and June 1 through November 30, 2017. If in-water work will extend beyond the effective dates of the IHA, a second IHA application will be submitted by WETA. This proposed authorization would be effective from June 28, 2016 to December 31, 2016.

Specific Geographic Region

The San Francisco ferry terminal is located in the western shore of San Francisco Bay (see Figure 1 of WETA's application). The ferry terminal is five blocks north of the San Francisco Oakland Bay Bridge. More specifically, the south basin of the ferry terminal is located between Pier 14 and the ferry plaza. San Francisco Bay and the adjacent Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta make up one of the largest estuarine systems on the continent. The Bay has undergone extensive industrialization, but remains an important environment for healthy marine mammal populations year round. The area surrounding the proposed activity is an intertidal landscape with heavy industrial use and boat traffic.

Detailed Description of Activities

The project supports existing and future planned water transit services operated by WETA, and regional policies to encourage transit uses. Furthermore, the project addresses deficiencies in the transportation network that impede water transit operation, passenger access, and passenger circulation at the Ferry Terminal.

The project includes construction of two new water transit gates and associated overwater berthing facilities, in addition to supportive improvements, such as additional passenger waiting and queuing areas and circulation improvements in a 7.7-acre area (see Figure 1 in the WETA's application, which depicts the project area, and Figure 2, which depicts the project improvements). The project includes the following elements: (1) Removal of portions of existing deck and pile construction (portions will remain as open water, and other portions will be replaced); (2) Construction of two new gates (Gates F and G); (3) Relocation of an existing gate (Gate E); and (4) Improved passenger boarding areas, amenities, and circulation, including extending the East Bayside Promenade along Gates E, F, and G; strengthening the South Apron of the Agriculture Building; creating the Embarcadero Plaza; and installing weather protection canopies for passenger queuing.

Implementation of the project improvements will result in a change in the type and area of structures over San Francisco Bay. In some areas, structures will be demolished and then rebuilt. The project will require both the removal and installation of piles as summarized in Table 1. Demolition and construction could be completed within 23 months.

Table 1—Summary of Pile Removal and Installation in 2016Project elementPile diameterPile typeMethodNumber of piles/scheduleDemolition in the South Basin12 to 18 inchesWood and concretePull or cut off 2 feet below mud line350 piles/30 days 2016.Removal of Dolphin Piles in the South Basin36 inchesSteel: 140 to 150 feet in lengthPull outFour dolphin piles/1 day.Embarcadero Plaza and East Bayside Promenade24 or 36 inchesSteel: 135 to 155 feet in lengthImpact or Vibratory Driver220 24- or 36-inch piles/65 days 2016.Fender Piles14 inchesPolyurethane-coated pressure-treated wood; 64 feet in lengthImpact or Vibratory Driver38/10 days 2016.Removal of Existing Facilities

As part of the project, the remnants of Pier 2 will be demolished and removed. This consists of approximately 21,000 square feet of existing deck structure supported by approximately 350 wood and concrete piles. In addition, four dolphin piles will be removed. Demolition will be conducted from barges. Two barges will be required: One for materials storage, and one outfitted with demolition equipment (crane, clamshell bucket for pulling of piles, and excavator for removal of the deck). Diesel-powered tug boats will bring the barges to the project area, where they will be anchored. Piles will be removed by either cutting them off two feet below the mud line, or pulling the pile through vibratory extraction.

Construction of Gates and Berthing Structures

The new gates (Gates F and G) will be built similarly. Each gate will be designed with an entrance portal—a prominent doorway physically separating the berthing structures from the surrounding area. Berthing structures will be provided for each new gate, consisting of floats, gangways, and guide piles. The steel floats will be approximately 42 feet wide by 135 feet long. The steel truss gangways will be approximately 14 feet wide and 105 feet long. The gangway will be designed to rise and fall with tidal variations while meeting Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. The gangway and the float will be designed with canopies, consistent with the current design of existing Gates B and E. The berthing structures will be fabricated off site and floated to the project area by barge. Six steel guide piles will be required to secure each float in place. In addition, dolphin piles may be used at each berthing structure to protect against the collision of vessels with other structures or vessels. A total of up to 14 dolphin piles may be installed.

Chock-block fendering will be added along the East Bayside Promenade, to adjacent structures to protect against collision. The chock-block fendering will consist of square, 12-inch-wide, polyurethane-coated, pressure-treated wood blocks that are connected along the side of the adjacent pier structure, and supported by polyurethane-coated, pressure-treated wood piles.

In addition, the existing Gate E float will be moved 43 feet to the east, to align with the new gates and East Bayside Promenade. The existing six 36-inch-diameter steel guide piles will be removed using vibratory extraction, and reinstalled to secure the Gate E float in place. Because of Gate E's new location, to meet ADA requirements, the existing 90-foot-long steel truss gangway will be replaced with a longer, 105-foot-long gangway.

Passenger Boarding and Circulation Areas

Several improvements will be made to passenger boarding and circulation areas. New deck and pile-supported structures will be built.

• An Embarcadero Plaza, elevated approximately 3 to 4 feet above current grade, will be created. The Embarcadero Plaza will require new deck and pile construction to fill an open-water area and replace existing structures that do not comply with Essential Facilities requirements.

• The East Bayside Promenade will be extended to create continuous pedestrian access to Gates E, F, and G, as well as to meet public access and pedestrian circulation requirements along San Francisco Bay. It will extend approximately 430 feet in length, and will provide an approximately 25-foot-wide area for pedestrian circulation and public access along Gates E, F, and G. The perimeter of the East Bayside Promenade will also include a curbed edge with a guardrail.

• Short access piers, approximately 30 feet wide and 45 feet long, will extend from the East Bayside Promenade to the portal for each gate.

• The South Apron of the Agriculture Building will be upgraded to temporarily support access for passenger circulation. Depending on their condition, as determined during Final Design, the piles supporting this apron may need to be strengthened with steel jackets.

• Two canopies will be constructed along the East Bayside Promenade: one between Gates E and F, and one between Gates F and G. Each of the canopies will be 125 feet long and 20 feet wide. Each canopy will be supported by four columns at 35 feet on center, with 10-foot cantilevers at either end. The canopies will be constructed of steel and glass, and will include photovoltaic cells.

The new deck will be constructed on the piles, using a system of beam-and-flat-slab-concrete construction, similar to what has been built in the Ferry Building area. The beam-and-slab construction will be either precast or cast-in-place concrete (or a combination of the two), and approximately 2.5 feet thick. Above the structure, granite paving or a concrete topping slab will provide a finished pedestrian surface.

The passenger facilities, amenities, and public space improvements—such as the entrance portals, canopy structures, lighting, guardrails, and furnishings—will be surface-mounted on the pier structures after the new construction and repair are complete. The canopies and entrance portals will be constructed offsite, delivered to the site, craned into place by barge, and assembled onsite. The glazing materials, cladding materials, granite pavers, guardrails, and furnishings will be assembled onsite.

Dredging Requirements

The side-loading vessels require a depth of 12.5 feet below mean lower low water (MLLW) on the approach and in the berthing area. Based on a bathymetric survey conducted in 2015, it is estimated that the new Gates F and G will require dredging to meet the required depths. The expected dredging volumes are presented in Table 2. These estimates are based on dredging the approach areas to 123.5 feet below MLLW, and 2 feet of overdredge depth, to account for inaccuracies in dredging practices. The dredging will take approximately 2 months.

Based on observed patterns of sediment accumulation in the Ferry Terminal area, significant sediment accumulation will not be expected, because regular maintenance dredging is not currently required to maintain operations at existing Gates B and E. However, some dredging will likely be required on a regular maintenance cycle beneath the floats at Gates F and G, due to their proximity to the Pier 14 breakwater. It is expected that maintenance dredging will be required every 3 to 4 years, and will require removal of approximately 5,000 to 10,000 cubic yards of material.

Dredging and disposal of dredged materials will be conducted in cooperation with the San Francisco Dredged Materials Management Office (DMMO), including development of a sampling plan, sediment characterization, a sediment removal plan, and disposal in accordance with the Long-Term Management Strategy for San Francisco Bay to ensure beneficial reuse, as appropriate. DMMO consultation is expected to begin in early 2016. Based on the results of the sediment analysis, the alternatives for placement of dredged materials will be evaluated, including disposal at the San Francisco Deep Ocean Disposal Site, disposal at an upland facility, or beneficial reuse. Selection of the disposal site will be reviewed and approved by the DMMO.

Comments and Responses

We published a notice of receipt of WETA's application and proposed IHA in the Federal Register on May 25, 2016 (81 FR 33217). We received one comment, a letter from the Marine Mammal Commission concurring with NMFS's preliminary findings.

Comment: The Commission recommends the issuance of the IHA, subject to the inclusion of the proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures.

Response: We appreciate the Commission's concurrence with our findings and appreciate their input and support. We made minor changes to the monitoring requirements, including allowing only one observer if impact driving is the only method if installation used on one day; and allowing WETA to modify the zones from data from hydroacoustic monitoring, with NMFS concurrence, and if the zones are small enough, to only have one observer. NMFS believes these changes will still allow the mitigation and monitoring measures to effect the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat.

Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity

There are seven marine mammal species which may inhabit or may likely transit through the waters nearby the Ferry Terminal, and which are expected to potentially be taken by the specified activity. These include the Pacific harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), California sea lion (Zalophus californianus), Northern Elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris), Northern fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus), harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus), and bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus). Multiple additional marine mammal species may occasionally enter the activity area in San Francisco Bay but would not be expected to occur in shallow nearshore waters of the action area. Guadalupe fur seals (Arctocephalus townsendi) generally do not occur in San Francisco Bay; however, there have been recent sightings of this species due to the El Niño event. Only single individuals of this species have occasionally been sighted inside San Francisco Bay, and their presence near the action area is considered unlikely. No takes are requested for this species, and mitigation measures such as a shutdown zone will be in effect for this species if observed approaching the Level B harassment zone. Although it is possible that a humpback whale (Megaptera navaeangliae) may enter San Francisco Bay and find its way into the project area during construction activities, their occurrence is unlikely. No takes are requested for this species, and mitigation measures such as a delay and shutdown procedure will be in effect for this species if observed approaching the Level B harassment zone. Table 3 lists the marine mammal species with expected potential for occurrence in the vicinity of the SF Ferry terminal during the project timeframe and summarizes key information regarding stock status and abundance. Taxonomically, we follow Committee on Taxonomy (2014). Please see NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports (SAR), available at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars, for more detailed accounts of these stocks' status and abundance. Please also refer to NMFS' Web site (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals) for generalized species accounts. We provided additional information for marine mammals with potential for occurrence in the area of the specified activity in our Federal Register notice of proposed authorization (May 25, 2016; 81 FR 33217).

Table 3—Marine Mammals Potentially Present in the Vicinity of San Francisco Ferry TerminalSpeciesStockESA/MMPA

E; S1,91811Unlikely.Order Carnivora—Superfamily PinnipediaFamily Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions)California sea lionU.S.-; N296,750 (n/a; 153,337; 2011)9,200Common.Guadalupe fur seal 5Mexico to CaliforniaT; S7,408 (n/a; 3,028; 1993)91Unlikely.Northern fur sealCalifornia stock-;N14,050 (n/a; 7,524; 2013)451Unlikely.Family Phocidae (earless seals)Harbor sealCalifornia-; N30,968 (n/a; 27,348; 2012)1,641Common; Year-round resident.Northern elephant sealCalifornia breeding stock-; N179,000 (n/a; 81,368; 2010)4,882Rare.1 ESA status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR (see footnote 3) or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.2 CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable. For certain stocks, abundance estimates are actual counts of animals and there is no associated CV. The most recent abundance survey that is reflected in the abundance estimate is presented; there may be more recent surveys that have not yet been incorporated into the estimate.3 Potential biological removal, defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population size (OSP).4 Abundance estimates for these stocks are greater than eight years old and are therefore not considered current. PBR is considered undetermined for these stocks, as there is no current minimum abundance estimate for use in calculation. We nevertheless present the most recent abundance estimates and PBR values, as these represent the best available information for use in this document.Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat

Our Federal Register notice of proposed authorization (May 25, 2016; 81 FR 33217) provides a general background on sound relevant to the specified activity as well as a detailed description of marine mammal hearing and of the potential effects of these construction activities on marine mammals and their habitat.

Mitigation

In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses.

Measurements from similar pile driving events were coupled with practical spreading loss to estimate zones of influence (ZOI; see Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment); these values were used to develop mitigation measures for pile driving and removal activities at the ferry terminal. The ZOIs effectively represent the mitigation zone that will be established around each pile to prevent Level A harassment to marine mammals, while providing estimates of the areas within which Level B harassment might occur. In addition to the specific measures described later in this section, WETA will conduct briefings between construction supervisors and crews, marine mammal monitoring team, and WETA staff prior to the start of all pile driving activity, and when new personnel join the work, in order to explain responsibilities, communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring protocol, and operational procedures.

Monitoring and Shutdown for Construction Activities

The following measures will apply to WETA's mitigation through shutdown and disturbance zones:

Shutdown Zone—For all pile driving activities, WETA will establish a shutdown zone intended to contain the area in which SPLs equal or exceed the 180/190 dB rms acoustic injury criteria for cetaceans and pinnipeds, respectively. The purpose of a shutdown zone is to define an area within which shutdown of activity would occur upon sighting of a marine mammal (or in anticipation of an animal entering the defined area), thus preventing injury of marine mammals (as described previously, serious injury or death are unlikely outcomes even in the absence of mitigation measures). Modeled radial distances for shutdown zones are shown in Table 4. However, a minimum shutdown zone of 10 m will be established during all pile driving activities, regardless of the estimated zone. Vibratory pile driving and removal activities are not predicted to produce sound exceeding the 180/190-dB Level A harassment threshold, but these precautionary measures are intended to prevent the already unlikely possibility of physical interaction with construction equipment and to further reduce any possibility of acoustic injury.

Disturbance Zone—Disturbance zones are the areas in which SPLs equal or exceed 160 and 120 dB rms (for impulse and continuous sound, respectively). Disturbance zones provide utility for monitoring conducted for mitigation purposes (i.e., shutdown zone monitoring) by establishing monitoring protocols for areas adjacent to the shutdown zones. Monitoring of disturbance zones enables observers to be aware of and communicate the presence of marine mammals in the project area but outside the shutdown zone and thus prepare for potential shutdowns of activity. However, the primary purpose of disturbance zone monitoring is for documenting instances of Level B harassment; disturbance zone monitoring is discussed in greater detail later (see Proposed Monitoring and Reporting). Nominal radial distances for disturbance zones are shown in Table 4. Given the size of the disturbance zone for vibratory pile driving, it is impossible to guarantee that all animals would be observed or to make comprehensive observations of fine-scale behavioral reactions to sound, and only a portion of the zone (e.g., what may be reasonably observed by visual observers stationed within the turning basin) would be observed.

In order to document observed instances of harassment, monitors record all marine mammal observations, regardless of location. The observer's location, as well as the location of the pile being driven, is known from a GPS. The location of the animal is estimated as a distance from the observer, which is then compared to the location from the pile. It may then be estimated whether the animal was exposed to sound levels constituting incidental harassment on the basis of predicted distances to relevant thresholds in post-processing of observational and acoustic data, and a precise accounting of observed incidences of harassment created. This information may then be used to extrapolate observed takes to reach an approximate understanding of actual total takes.

Monitoring Protocols—Monitoring will be conducted before, during, and after pile driving and vibratory removal activities. In addition, observers shall record all instances of marine mammal occurrence, regardless of distance from activity, and shall document any behavioral reactions in concert with distance from piles being driven. Observations made outside the shutdown zone will not result in shutdown; that pile segment would be completed without cessation, unless the animal approaches or enters the shutdown zone, at which point all pile driving activities would be halted. Monitoring will take place from fifteen minutes prior to initiation through thirty minutes post-completion of pile driving and removal activities. Pile driving activities include the time to install or remove a single pile or series of piles, as long as the time elapsed between uses of the pile driving equipment is no more than thirty minutes. Please see the Monitoring Plan (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm), developed by WETA in agreement with NMFS, for full details of the monitoring protocols.

The following additional measures apply to visual monitoring:

(1) Monitoring will be conducted by qualified observers, who will be placed at the best vantage point(s) practicable to monitor for marine mammals and implement shutdown/delay procedures when applicable by calling for the shutdown to the hammer operator. A minimum of two observers will be required for all pile driving/removal activities, unless only impact driving is to occur on that day, in which case only one observer will be required. This was modified from the proposed FR notice. It was determined that one MMO could adequately survey the impact driving zones. Qualified observers are typically trained biologists, with the following minimum qualifications:

• Visual acuity in both eyes (correction is permissible) sufficient for discernment of moving targets at the water's surface with ability to estimate target size and distance; use of binoculars may be necessary to correctly identify the target;

• Experience and ability to conduct field observations and collect data according to assigned protocols (this may include academic experience);

• Experience or training in the field identification of marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors;

• Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the construction operation to provide for personal safety during observations;

• Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations including but not limited to the number and species of marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction activities were conducted; dates and times when in-water construction activities were suspended to avoid potential incidental injury from construction sound of marine mammals observed within a defined shutdown zone; and marine mammal behavior; and

• Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals observed in the area as necessary.

(2) Prior to the start of pile driving activity, the shutdown zone will be monitored for fifteen minutes to ensure that it is clear of marine mammals. Pile driving will only commence once observers have declared the shutdown zone clear of marine mammals; animals will be allowed to remain in the shutdown zone (i.e., must leave of their own volition) and their behavior will be monitored and documented. The shutdown zone may only be declared clear, and pile driving started, when the entire shutdown zone is visible (i.e., when not obscured by dark, rain, fog, etc.). In addition, if such conditions should arise during impact pile driving that is already underway, the activity will be halted.

(3) If a marine mammal approaches or enters the shutdown zone during the course of pile driving operations, activity will be halted and delayed until either the animal has voluntarily left and been visually confirmed beyond the shutdown zone or fifteen minutes have passed without re-detection of small cetaceans and pinnipeds, and thirty minutes for gray whales. Monitoring will be conducted throughout the time required to drive a pile.

(4) Using delay and shut-down procedures, if a species for which authorization has not been granted (including but not limited to Guadalupe fur seals and humpback whales) or if a species for which authorization has been granted but the authorized takes are met, approaches or is observed within the Level B harassment zone, activities will shut down immediately and not restart until the animals have been confirmed to have left the area.

Soft Start

The use of a soft start procedure is believed to provide additional protection to marine mammals by warning or providing a chance to leave the area prior to the hammer operating at full capacity, and typically involves a requirement to initiate sound from the hammer at reduced energy followed by a waiting period. This procedure is repeated two additional times. It is difficult to specify the reduction in energy for any given hammer because of variation across drivers and, for impact hammers, the actual number of strikes at reduced energy will vary because operating the hammer at less than full power results in “bouncing” of the hammer as it strikes the pile, resulting in multiple “strikes.” For impact driving, we require an initial set of three strikes from the impact hammer at reduced energy, followed by a thirty-second waiting period, then two subsequent three strike sets. Soft start will be required at the beginning of each day's impact pile driving work and at any time following a cessation of impact pile driving of thirty minutes or longer.

We have carefully evaluated WETA's proposed mitigation measures and considered their effectiveness in past implementation to determine whether they are likely to effect the least practicable impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures included consideration of the following factors in relation to one another: (1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals, (2) the proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to minimize adverse impacts as planned; and (3) the practicability of the measure for applicant implementation.

Any mitigation measure(s) we prescribe should be able to accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on current science), or contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of the general goals listed below:

(1) Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal).

(2) A reduction in the number (total number or number at biologically important time or location) of individual marine mammals exposed to stimuli expected to result in incidental take (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing takes by behavioral harassment only).

(3) A reduction in the number (total number or number at biologically important time or location) of times any individual marine mammal would be exposed to stimuli expected to result in incidental take (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing takes by behavioral harassment only).

(4) A reduction in the intensity of exposure to stimuli expected to result in incidental take (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing the severity of behavioral harassment only).

(5) Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal habitat, paying particular attention to the prey base, blockage or limitation of passage to or from biologically important areas, permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary disturbance of habitat during a biologically important time.

(6) For monitoring directly related to mitigation, an increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation.

Based on our evaluation of WETA's proposed measures, as well as any other potential measures that may be relevant to the specified activity, we have determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.

Monitoring and Reporting

In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.” The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for incidental take authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the proposed action area.

Any monitoring requirement we prescribe should improve our understanding of one or more of the following:

WETA's planned monitoring and reporting is also described in their Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan, on the Internet at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/construction.htm.

Hydroacousting Monitoring

Hydroacoustic monitoring will be conducted during a minimum of ten percent of all pile driving activities. The monitoring will be done in accordance with the methodology outlined in this Hydroacoustic Monitoring Plan (see Appendix A of WETA's application for more information on this plan, including the methodology, equipment, and reporting information). The monitoring will be conducted based on the following:

• Be based on the dual metric criteria (Popper et al., 2006) and the accumulated sound exposure level (SEL);

• Establish field locations that will be used to document the extent of the area experiencing 187 decibels (dB) SEL accumulated;

• Establish the distance to the Marine Mammal Level A and Level B Safety and Harassment zones;

• Describe the methods necessary to continuously assess underwater noise on a real-time basis, including details on the number, location, distance and depth of hydrophones, and associated monitoring equipment;

• Provide a means of recording the time and number of pile strikes, the peak sound energy per strike, and interval between strikes;

• Provide provisions to provide all monitoring data to the CDFW and NMFS.

Visual Marine Mammal Observations

WETA will collect sighting data and behavioral responses to construction for marine mammal species observed in the region of activity during the period of activity. All observers (MMOs) will be trained in marine mammal identification and behaviors and are required to have no other construction-related tasks while conducting monitoring. A minimum of two MMOs will be required for all pile driving/removal activities, unless only impact driving is to occur on that day, in which case only one observer will be required. WETA will monitor the shutdown zone and disturbance zone before, during, and after pile driving, with observers located at the best practicable vantage points. Based on our requirements, WETA will implement the following procedures for pile driving and removal:

• MMOs will be located at the best vantage point(s) in order to properly see the entire shutdown zone and as much of the disturbance zone as possible.

• During all observation periods, observers will use binoculars and the naked eye to search continuously for marine mammals.

• If the shutdown zones are obscured by fog or poor lighting conditions, pile driving at that location will not be initiated until that zone is visible. Should such conditions arise while impact driving is underway, the activity will be halted.

• The shutdown and disturbance zones around the pile will be monitored for the presence of marine mammals before, during, and after any pile driving or removal activity.

Individuals implementing the monitoring protocol will assess its effectiveness using an adaptive approach. The monitoring biologists will use their best professional judgment throughout implementation and seek improvements to these methods when deemed appropriate. Any modifications to protocol will be coordinated between NMFS and WETA.

In addition, the MMO(s) will survey the potential Level A and nearby Level B harassment zones (areas within approximately 2,000 feet of the pile-driving area observable from the shore) on 2 separate days—no earlier than 7 days before the first day of construction—to establish baseline observations. Monitoring will be timed to occur during various tides (preferably low and high tides) during daylight hours from locations that are publicly accessible (e.g., Pier 14 or the Ferry Plaza). The information collected from baseline monitoring will be used for comparison with results of monitoring during pile-driving activities.

Data Collection

We require that observers use approved data forms. Among other pieces of information, WETA will record detailed information about any implementation of shutdowns, including the distance of animals to the pile and description of specific actions that ensued and resulting behavior of the animal, if any. In addition, WETA will attempt to distinguish between the number of individual animals taken and the number of incidences of take. We require that, at a minimum, the following information be collected on the sighting forms:

• Date and time that monitored activity begins or ends;

• Construction activities occurring during each observation period;

• Weather parameters (e.g., percent cover, visibility);

• Water conditions (e.g., sea state, tide state);

• Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of marine mammals;

• Description of any observable marine mammal behavior patterns, including bearing and direction of travel, and if possible, the correlation to SPLs;

• Distance from pile driving or removal activities to marine mammals and distance from the marine mammals to the observation point;

A draft report will be submitted to NMFS within 90 days of the completion of marine mammal monitoring, or 60 days prior to the requested date of issuance of any future IHA for projects at the same location, whichever comes first. The report will include marine mammal observations pre-activity, during-activity, and post-activity during pile driving and removal days, and will also provide descriptions of any behavioral responses to construction activities by marine mammals and a complete description of all mitigation shutdowns and the results of those actions and an extrapolated total take estimate based on the number of marine mammals observed during the course of construction. A final report must be submitted within thirty days following resolution of comments on the draft report.

Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment

Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines “harassment” as: “. . . any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].”

All anticipated takes would be by Level B harassment resulting from vibratory and impact pile driving and removal and involving temporary changes in behavior. The planned mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to minimize the possibility of injurious or lethal takes such that take by Level A harassment, serious injury, or mortality is considered discountable. However, it is unlikely that injurious or lethal takes would occur even in the absence of the planned mitigation and monitoring measures.

Given the many uncertainties in predicting the quantity and types of impacts of sound on marine mammals, it is common practice to estimate how many animals are likely to be present within a particular distance of a given activity, or exposed to a particular level of sound. In practice, depending on the amount of information available to characterize daily and seasonal movement and distribution of affected marine mammals, it can be difficult to distinguish between the number of individuals harassed and the instances of harassment and, when duration of the activity is considered, it can result in a take estimate that overestimates the number of individuals harassed. In particular, for stationary activities, it is more likely that some smaller number of individuals may accrue a number of incidences of harassment per individual than for each incidence to accrue to a new individual, especially if those individuals display some degree of residency or site fidelity and the impetus to use the site (e.g., because of foraging opportunities) is stronger than the deterrence presented by the harassing activity.

The area where the ferry terminal is located is not considered important habitat for marine mammals, as it is a highly industrial area with high levels of vessel traffic and background noise. While there are harbor seal haul outs within two miles of the construction activity at Yerba Buena Island, and a California sea lion haul out approximately 1.5 miles away at pier 39, behavioral disturbances that could result from anthropogenic sound associated with these activities are expected to affect only a relatively small number of individual marine mammals that may venture near the ferry terminal, although those effects could be recurring over the life of the project if the same individuals remain in the project vicinity. WETA has requested authorization for the incidental taking of small numbers of harbor seals, Northern elephant seals, Norther fur seals, California sea lions, harbor porpoise, bottlenose dolphin, and gray whales near the San Francisco Ferry Terminal that may result from construction activities associated with the project described previously in this document.

In order to estimate the potential instances of take that may occur incidental to the specified activity, we must first estimate the extent of the sound field that may be produced by the activity and then consider in combination with information about marine mammal density or abundance in the project area. We described applicable sound thresholds for determining effects to marine mammals before describing the information used in estimating the sound fields, the available marine mammal density or abundance information, and the method of estimating potential incidents of take in detail in our Federal Register notice of proposed authorization (May 25, 2016; 81 FR 33217). All calculated distances to and the total area encompassed by the marine mammal sound thresholds are provided in Table 4.

All calculated distances to, and the total area encompassed by, the marine mammal sound thresholds are provided in Table 4. No physiological responses are expected from pile-driving operations occurring during project construction. Vibratory pile extraction and driving does not generate high-peak sound-pressure levels commonly associated with physiological damage. Impact driving can produce noise levels in excess of the Level A thresholds, but only within 50 feet (15 meters) of impact-driving of 36-inch piles. The shutdown zone will be equivalent to the area over which Level A harassment may occur, including the 180 dB re 1 μPa (cetaceans) and 190 dB re 1 μPa (pinnipeds) isopleths (Table 4); however, a minimum 10 m shutdown zone will be applied to the these zones as a precautionary measure intended to prevent the already unlikely possibility of physical interaction with construction equipment and to further reduce any possibility of acoustic injury. The disturbance zones will be equivalent to the area over which Level B harassment may occur, including160 dB re 1 μPa (impact pile driving) and 120 dB re 1 μPa (vibratory pile driving) isopleths (Table 4). These zones may be modified based on results from the hydroacoustic monitoring (see Appendix A of WETA's application). This was a change from the proposed FR notice. It was determined that hydroacoustic monitoring will give more accurate information than modeled results, and therefore, should be used as the harassment zones. Any changes will need to be reviewed and approved by NMFS.

South Basin Pile Demolition and Removal18-Inch Wood Piles—Vibratory Driver* 1500<1* 1,600* 2.3018-Inch Concrete Piles—Vibratory Driver1500<11,0001.2736-Inch Steel Piles—Vibratory Driver3 169<1218,47886.52Embarcadero Plaza and East Bayside Promenade and Gates E, F, and G Dolphin and Guide Piles36-Inch Steel Piles—Vibratory Driver169<1218,47886.5236-Inch Steel Piles—Impact Driver (BCA)33 1834163410.1824-Inch Steel Piles—Vibratory Driver163017,35638.0724-Inch Steel Piles—Impact Driver (BCA)3 1802102150.09Fender Piles14-Inch Wood Piles- Vibratory Driver142002930.1414-Inch Wood Piles—Impact Driver15800701 For underwater noise, the Level A harassment threshold for cetaceans is 180 dB and 190 dB for pinnipeds.2 For underwater noise, the Level B harassment (disturbance) threshold is 160 dB for impulsive noise and typical ambient levels (120 dB) for continuous noise.3 The source levels used for vibratory driving of 36 in steel piles, and impact driving with a bubble curtain of 24 in and 36 in steel piles were incorrectly entered into this table in the proposed FR notice. The correct values are shown above.* This SL is at 16m and was stated as 10m in the proposed FR notice. Because of this revision, the 120 dB distance and the area were updated.BCA Bubble curtain attenuation will be used during impact driving of steel piles.dB decibels.RMS root mean square.Marine Mammal Densities

At-sea densities for marine mammal species have been determined for harbor seals and California sea lions in San Francisco Bay; all other estimates here are determined by using observational data taken during marine mammal monitoring associated with the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge retrofit project, the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge (SFOBB), which has been ongoing for the past 15 years, and anecdotal observational reports from local entities. It is not currently possible to identify all observed individuals to stock.

Description of Take Calculation

All estimates are conservative and include the following assumptions:

• All pilings installed at each site would have an underwater noise disturbance equal to the piling that causes the greatest noise disturbance (i.e., the piling farthest from shore) installed with the method that has the largest ZOI. The largest underwater disturbance ZOI would be produced by vibratory driving steel piles. The ZOIs for each threshold are not spherical and are truncated by land masses on either side of the channel which would dissipate sound pressure waves.

• Exposures were based on estimated total of 106 work days. Each activity ranges in amount of days needed to be completed (Table 1). Note that impact driving is likely to occur only on days when vibratory driving occurs.

• In absence of site specific underwater acoustic propagation modeling, the practical spreading loss model was used to determine the ZOI.

• All marine mammal individuals potentially available are assumed to be present within the relevant area, and thus incidentally taken;

• An individual can only be taken once during a 24-h period; and,

• Exposures to sound levels at or above the relevant thresholds equate to take, as defined by the MMPA.

The estimation of marine mammal takes typically uses the following calculation:

For harbor seals and California sea lions: Level B exposure estimate = D (density) * Area of ensonification) * Number of days of noise generating activities.

For all other marine mammal species: Level B exposure estimate = N (number of animals) in the area * Number of days of noise generating activities.

To account for the increase in California sea lion density due to El Niño, the daily take estimated from the observed density has been increased by a factor of 10 for each day that pile driving or removal occurs.

There are a number of reasons why estimates of potential instances of take may be overestimates of the number of individuals taken, assuming that available density or abundance estimates and estimated ZOI areas are accurate. We assume, in the absence of information supporting a more refined conclusion, that the output of the calculation represents the number of individuals that may be taken by the specified activity. In fact, in the context of stationary activities such as pile driving and in areas where resident animals may be present, this number represents the number of instances of take that may accrue to a smaller number of individuals, with some number of animals being exposed more than once per individual. While pile driving and removal can occur any day throughout the in-water work window, and the analysis is conducted on a per day basis, only a fraction of that time (typically a matter of hours on any given day) is actually spent pile driving/removal. The potential effectiveness of mitigation measures in reducing the number of takes is typically not quantified in the take estimation process. For these reasons, these take estimates may be conservative, especially if each take is considered a separate individual animal, and especially for pinnipeds.

The quantitative exercise described above indicates that no instances of Level A harassment would be expected, independent of the implementation of required mitigation measures. See Table 5 for total estimated instances of take.

Table 5—Calculations for Incidental Take EstimationPile typePile-driver typeNumber of driving daysEstimated take by level B harassment

Vibratory 36566/4,290110/7,150NANANANANA14-inch wood pileVibratory 3101/1010/100NANANANANAProject Total (2016) 41064,4267,660219210301 To account for potential El Niño conditions, take calculated from at-sea densities for California sea lion has been increased by a factor of 10.2 Take is not calculated by activity type for these species with a low potential to occur, only a yearly total is given.3 Piles of this type may also be installed with an impact hammer, which would reduce the estimated take.4 This total assumes the more conservative use of 36-inch steel piles used for the Embarcadero Plaza; however, an alternative would be to use 24-in steel piles, which would result in smaller take numbers. Take numbers have been updated from the proposed FR notice based on public comment, and are described in the Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity section.Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified ActivityHarbor Seals

Monitoring of marine mammals in the vicinity of the SFOBB has been ongoing for 15 years; from those data, Caltrans has produced at-sea density estimates for Pacific harbor seal of 0.77 animals per square kilometer for the fall season (Caltrans, 2015b). Using this density, the potential average daily take for the areas over which the Level B harassment thresholds may be exceeded are estimated in Table 6.

Table 6—Take Calculation for Harbor SealActivityPile typeDensityArea (km2)Take estimateVibratory driving and extraction36-in steel pile 10.77 animal/km286.534,290; 66Vibratory extractionWood and concrete piles0.77 animal/km22.3060Vibratory drivingWood piles0.77 animal/km20.13101 The more conservative use of 36-inch steel piles for the Embarcadero Plaza was used here; however, an alternative would be to use 24-in steel piles, which would result in smaller take numbers (780 vs. 1,690).

A total of 1,756 harbor seal takes are estimated for 2016 (Table 6). This take number is larger than the take number in the proposed IHA. This change was based on public comment and take was increased based on using fall densities instead of summer densities, to be more representative of the season in which construction will occur and may affect harbor seals.

California Sea Lion

Monitoring of marine mammals in the vicinity of the SFOBB has been ongoing for 15 years; from those data, Caltrans has produced at-sea density estimates for California sea lion of 0.31 animals per square mile (0.12 animal per square kilometer) for the late summer to fall season (Caltrans, 2015b). Using this density, the potential average daily take for the areas over which the Level B harassment thresholds may be exceeded is estimated in Table 7.

Table 7—Take Calculation for California Sea LionActivityPile typeDensityArea (km2)Take estimateVibratory driving and extraction36-in steel pile 10.31 (0.12 animal/km2)86.53* 7,150; * 110Vibratory extractionWood and concrete piles0.31 (0.12 animal/km2)2.3* 300Vibratory drivingWood piles0.31 (0.12 animal/km2)0.13* 100* All California sea lion estimates were multiplied by 10 to account for the increased occurrence of this species due to El Niño.1 The more conservative use of 36-inch steel piles for the Embarcadero Plaza was used here; however, an alternative would be to use 24-in steel piles, which would result in smaller take numbers (3,250 vs 7,150).

All California sea lion estimates were multiplied by 10 to account for the increased occurrence of this species due to El Niño. A total of 7,660 California sea lion takes is estimated for 2016 (Table 5).

Northern Elephant Seal

Monitoring of marine mammals in the vicinity of the SFOBB has been ongoing for 15 years; from those data, Caltrans has produced an estimated at-sea density for northern elephant seal of 0.16 animal per square mile (0.03 animal per square kilometer) (Caltrans, 2015b). Most sightings of northern elephant seal in San Francisco Bay occur in spring or early summer, and are less likely to occur during the periods of in-water work for this project (June/July through November). As a result, densities during pile driving and removal for the proposed action would be much lower. Therefore, we estimate that it is possible that a lone northern elephant seal may enter the Level B harassment area once per week during pile driving or removal, for a total of 21 takes in 2016 (Table 5). This take number is larger than the take number in the proposed IHA. This change was based on public comment and take was increased from 14 to 21 to be more representative of the number of weeks during construction activities over 106 days (21 weeks vs 14 weeks) if one individual was in the Level B harassment area once per week.

Northern Fur Seal

During the breeding season, the majority of the worldwide population is found on the Pribilof Islands in the southern Bering Sea, with the remaining animals spread throughout the North Pacific Ocean. On the coast of California, small breeding colonies are present at San Miguel Island off southern California, and the Farallon Islands off central California (Caretta et al 2014). Northern fur seal are a pelagic species and are rarely seen near the shore away from breeding areas. Juveniles of this species occasionally strand in San Francisco Bay, particularly during El Niño events, for example, during the 2006 El Niño event, 33 fur seals were admitted to the Marine Mammal Center (TMMC, 2016). Some of these stranded animals were collected from shorelines in San Francisco Bay. Due to the recent El Niño event, Northern fur seals are being observed in San Francisco bay more frequently, as well as strandings all along the California coast and inside San Francisco Bay; a trend that is expected to continue this summer through winter (TMMC, personal communication). Because sightings are normally rare; instances recently have been observed, but are not common, and based on estimates from local observations (TMMC, personal communication), it is estimated that ten Northern fur seals will be taken in 2016 (Table 5).

Harbor Porpoise

In the last six decades, harbor porpoises were observed outside of San Francisco Bay. The few harbor porpoises that entered were not sighted past central Bay close to the Golden Gate Bridge. In recent years, however, there have been increasingly common observations of harbor porpoises in central, north, and south San Francisco Bay. Porpoise activity inside San Francisco Bay is thought to be related to foraging and mating behaviors (Keener, 2011; Duffy, 2015). According to observations by the Golden Gate Cetacean Research team as part of their multi-year assessment, over 100 porpoises may be seen at one time entering San Francisco Bay; and over 600 individual animals are documented in a photo-ID database. However, sightings are concentrated in the vicinity of the Golden Gate Bridge and Angel Island, north of the project area, with lesser numbers sighted south of Alcatraz and west of Treasure Island (Keener 2011). Harbor porpoise generally travel individually or in small groups of two or three (Sekiguchi, 1995).

Monitoring of marine mammals in the vicinity of the SFOBB has been ongoing for 15 years; from those data, Caltrans has produced an estimated at-sea density for harbor porpoise of 0.01 animal per square mile (0.004 animal per square kilometer) (Caltrans, 2015b). However, this estimate would be an overestimate of what would actually be seen in the project area. In order to estimate a more realistic take number, we assume it is possible that a small group of individuals (three harbor porpoises) may enter the Level B harassment area on as many as three days of pile driving or removal, for a total of nine harbor porpoise takes per year (Table 5). This take number is larger than the take number in the proposed IHA. This change was based on public comment and take was increased by increasing the number of potential days harbor porpoise may be near the construction activity and incidentally harassed from two to three days to be conservative.

Gray Whale

Historically, gray whales were not common in San Francisco Bay. The Oceanic Society has tracked gray whale sightings since they began returning to San Francisco Bay regularly in the late 1990s. The Oceanic Society data show that all age classes of gray whales are entering San Francisco Bay, and that they enter as singles or in groups of up to five individuals. However, the data do not distinguish between sightings of gray whales and number of individual whales (Winning, 2008). Caltrans Richmond-San Rafael Bridge project monitors recorded 12 living and two dead gray whales in the surveys performed in 2012. All sightings were in either the central or north Bay; and all but two sightings occurred during the months of April and May. One gray whale was sighted in June, and one in October (the specific years were unreported). It is estimated that two to six gray whales enter San Francisco Bay in any given year. Because construction activities are only occurring during a maximum of 106 days in 2016, it is estimated that two gray whales may potentially enter the area during the construction period, for a total of 2 gray whale takes in 2016 (Table 5).

Bottlenose Dolphin

Since the 1982-83 El Niño, which increased water temperatures off California, bottlenose dolphins have been consistently sighted along the central California coast (Caretta et al. 2008). The northern limit of their regular range is currently the Pacific coast off San Francisco and Marin County, and they occasionally enter San Francisco Bay, sometimes foraging for fish in Fort Point Cove, just east of the Golden Gate Bridge. In the summer of 2015, a lone bottlenose dolphin was seen swimming in the Oyster Point area of South San Francisco (GGCR, 2016). Members of this stock are transient and make movements up and down the coast, and into some estuaries, throughout the year. Bottlenose dolphins are being observed in San Francisco bay more frequently in recent years (TMMC, personal communication). Groups with an average group size of five animals enter the bay and occur near Yerba Buena Island once per week for a two week stint and then depart the bay (TMMC, personal communication). Assuming groups of five individuals may enter San Francisco Bay approximately three times during the construction activities, we estimate 30 takes of bottlenose dolphins for 2016 (Table 5).

Analyses and Preliminary DeterminationsNegligible Impact Analysis

NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “. . . an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.” A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-level effects). An estimate of the number of Level B harassment takes alone is not enough information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be “taken” through behavioral harassment, we consider other factors, such as the likely nature of any responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context of any responses (e.g., critical reproductive time or location, migration), as well as the number and nature of estimated Level A harassment takes, the number of estimated mortalities, and effects on habitat.

Pile driving and removal activities associated with the ferry terminal construction project, as outlined previously, have the potential to disturb or displace marine mammals. Specifically, the specified activities may result in take, in the form of Level B harassment (behavioral disturbance) only, from underwater sounds generated from pile driving and removal. Potential takes could occur if individuals of these species are present in the ensonified zone when pile driving and removal occurs.

No injury, serious injury, or mortality is anticipated given the nature of the activities and measures designed to minimize the possibility of injury to marine mammals. The potential for these outcomes is minimized through the construction method and the implementation of the planned mitigation measures. Specifically, vibratory hammers will be the primary method of installation (impact driving is included only as a contingency), and this activity does not have the potential to cause injury to marine mammals due to the relatively low source levels produced (less than 180 dB) and the lack of potentially injurious source characteristics. Impact pile driving produces short, sharp pulses with higher peak levels and much sharper rise time to reach those peaks. If impact driving is necessary, implementation of soft start and shutdown zones significantly reduces any possibility of injury. Given sufficient “notice” through use of soft start (for impact driving), marine mammals are expected to move away from a sound source that is annoying prior to it becoming potentially injurious. WETA will also employ the use of 12-inch-thick wood cushion block on impact hammers, and use a bubble curtain as sound attenuation devices. Environmental conditions in San Francisco Ferry Terminal mean that marine mammal detection ability by trained observers is high, enabling a high rate of success in implementation of shutdowns to avoid injury.

WETA's proposed activities are localized; the entire project area is limited to the San Francisco ferry terminal area and its immediate surroundings. These localized noise exposures may cause short-term behavioral modifications in harbor seals, Northern fur seals, Northern elephant seals, California sea lions, harbor porpoises, bottlenose dolphins, and gray whales. Moreover, the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to reduce the likelihood of injury and more severe behavior exposures. Additionally, no important feeding and/or reproductive areas for marine mammals are known to be within the ensonified area during the construction time frame.

The project also is not expected to have significant adverse effects on affected marine mammals' habitat. The project activities would not modify existing marine mammal habitat for a significant amount of time. The activities may cause some fish to leave the area of disturbance, thus temporarily impacting marine mammals' foraging opportunities in a limited portion of the foraging range; but, because of the short duration of the activities and the relatively small area of the habitat that may be affected, the impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to cause significant or long-term negative consequences.

Effects on individuals that are taken by Level B harassment, on the basis of reports in the literature as well as monitoring from other similar activities, will likely be limited to reactions such as increased swimming speeds, increased surfacing time, or decreased foraging (if such activity were occurring) (e.g., Thorson and Reyff, 2006; Lerma, 2014). Most likely, individuals will simply move away from the sound source and be temporarily displaced from the areas of pile driving, although even this reaction has been observed primarily only in association with impact pile driving. Repeated exposures of individuals to levels of sound that may cause Level B harassment are unlikely to result in hearing impairment or to significantly disrupt foraging behavior due to the small ensonification area and relatively short duration of the project. Thus, even repeated Level B harassment of some small subset of the overall stock is unlikely to result in any significant realized decrease in fitness for the affected individuals, and thus would not result in any adverse impact to the stock as a whole.

In summary, this negligible impact analysis is founded on the following factors: (1) The possibility of injury, serious injury, or mortality may reasonably be considered discountable; (2) the anticipated instances of Level B harassment consist of, at worst, temporary modifications in behavior; (3) the presumed efficacy of the planned mitigation measures in reducing the effects of the specified activity to the level of least practicable impact, and (4) the lack of important areas. In addition, these stocks are not listed under the ESA. In combination, we believe that these factors, as well as the available body of evidence from other similar activities, demonstrate that the potential effects of the specified activity will have only short-term effects on individuals. The specified activity is not reasonably expected to and is not reasonably likely to adversely affect the marine mammal species or stocks through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival, and will therefore not result in population-level impacts.

Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the planned monitoring and mitigation measures, we find that the total marine mammal take from WETA's ferry terminal construction activities will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks.

Small Numbers Analysis

Table 8 details the number of instances that animals could be exposed to received noise levels that could cause Level B behavioral harassment for the proposed work at the ferry terminal project site relative to the total stock abundance. The numbers of animals authorized to be taken for all species would be considered small relative to the relevant stocks or populations even if each estimated instance of take occurred to a new individual—an extremely unlikely scenario. The total percent of the population (if each instance was a separate individual) for which take is requested is approximately 14 percent for harbor seals, approximately nine percent for bottlenose dolphins, less than three percent for California sea lions, and less than one percent for all other species (Table 8). For pinnipeds, especially harbor seals occurring in the vicinity of the ferry terminal, there will almost certainly be some overlap in individuals present day-to-day, and the number of individuals taken is expected to be notably lower. We preliminarily find that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the populations of the affected species or stocks.

Table 8—Estimated Numbers and Percentage of Stock That May Be Exposed to Level B HarassmentSpeciesProposed authorized takesStock(s)

There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated by this action. Therefore, we have determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

No marine mammal species listed under the ESA are expected to be affected by these activities. Therefore, we have determined that section 7 consultation under the ESA is not required.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

NMFS conducted an analysis, pursuant to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), to determine whether or not this proposed activity may have a significant effect on the human environment. NMFS determined that these activities will not have a significant effect on the human environment and published a Finding of No Significant Impact.

Proposed Authorization

As a result of these determinations, we have issued an IHA to WETA to conduct the described construction activities for the Downtown San Francisco Ferry Terminal Expansion Project, South Basin Improvements Project, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated.

The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Title: Fishery Observer Retention Survey.

OMB Control Number: 0648-xxxx.

Form Number(s): None.

Type of Request: Regular (request for a new information collection).

Number of Respondents: 785.

Average Hours per Response: 20 minutes.

Burden Hours: 262.

Needs and Uses: This request is for a new information collection.

NOAA Fisheries utilizes observers to collect information on catch, bycatch, fishing efforts, biological characteristics, interactions with protected species, and socioeconomic information from United States (U.S.) commercial fishing and processing vessels. More information on the observer population is needed to support the Agency's conservation and management goals, to strengthen and improve fishery management decision-making, and to satisfy legal mandates under the Reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Endangered Species Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Executive Order 12866 (EO 12866), and other pertinent statutes.

The National Observer Program (NOP) is conducting a survey of fishery observers in order to investigate incentives and disincentives for remaining an observer and to identify their subsequent career choices. The data will be used by the NOP and regional observer programs to improve observer recruitment and retention rates. The survey results will be used by regional program managers to evaluate current observer provider contract requirements to increase observer retention. With a greater understanding of these data observer retention may increase as a result of improved recruitment for observers. Improved retention of qualified and experienced observers is expected to reduce training efforts and costs, and improve data quality. Observers are often the only independent data collection source for federal agency and scientists to collect at-sea data and are crucial in fishery management.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Frequency: One time.

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov or fax to (202) 395-5806.

The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

Type of Request: Regular (revision and extension of a currently approved information collection).

Number of Respondents: 300.

Average Hours per Response: 30 minutes each for a project summary, key contacts and current and pending federal support; 5 hours for a semi-annual report; 5 hours for an annual report and 10 hours for a final report.

Burden Hours: 1,050.

Needs and Uses: This request is for a revision and extension of a currently approved information collection. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Coastal Ocean Program (COP) provides direct financial assistance through grants and cooperative agreements for research supporting the management of coastal ecosystems. The statutory authority for COP is Public Law 102-567 Section 201 (Coastal Ocean Program). In addition to standard government application requirements, applicants for financial assistance are required to submit a project summary form, current and pending form and a key contacts form. Recipients are required to file annual progress reports and a project final report using COP formats. All of these requirements are needed for better evaluation of proposals and monitoring of awards.

This revision is the addition of the NOAA RESTORE Act Science Program. This program provides direct financial assistance through grants and cooperative agreements for research, observation, and monitoring to support, to the maximum extent practicable, the long-term sustainability of the ecosystem, fish stocks, fish habitat, and the recreational, commercial, and charter-fishing industry in the Gulf of Mexico. NOAA was authorized to establish and administer the Program, in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, by the Resources and Ecosystems Sustainability, Tourist Opportunities, and Revived Economies (RESTORE) of the Gulf States Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-141, Section 1604). Identified in the RESTORE Act as the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Science, Observation, Monitoring, and Technology Program, the Program is commonly known as the NOAA RESTORE Act Science Program. The NOAA RESTORE Act Science Program will use the standard government application forms for financial assistance as well as the COP project summary form, current and pending form and a key contacts form. Recipients are required to file semi-annual progress reports and a project final report using a revised COP format. These additional forms are necessary for consistency. The main purpose of this information collection is to enable the NOAA RESTORE Act Science Program to provide summaries of each proposed project, the key applicant contact information and their current and pending Federal funding. The information gathered will enable the NOAA RESTORE Act Science Program to properly and quickly evaluate proposals in a collaborative environment with its partner agencies.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION:

Notice of Intent to prepare a restoration plan (RP) and environmental impact statement (EIS), and to conduct scoping.

SUMMARY:

The Federal and state natural resource trustees for the Alabama Trustee Implementation Group for the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) oil spill (Alabama TIG) intend to prepare an EIS under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to evaluate the environmental consequences of a range of restoration projects that the Alabama TIG will propose in an RP developed pursuant to the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) to compensate the public for lost recreational use opportunities in Alabama caused by the DWH oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Restoration planning to compensate the public for lost recreational opportunities in Alabama is expected to be phased. This initial restoration planning activity will occur during the 2016 planning year.

This restoration planning activity is occurring, in part, in accordance with the February 16, 2016, decision in Gulf Restoration Network v. Jewell, Case 1:15-cv-00191-CB-C (S.D. Ala.), in which the court enjoined the use of $58.5 million in DWH early restoration funds pending additional analysis under NEPA and OPA. This restoration planning activity fulfills the Federal and state natural resources trustees' responsibilities under this court order while looking more broadly at the potential to provide restoration for lost recreational use within Alabama. Accordingly, this initial recreational use restoration planning activity may develop restoration projects to compensate for the full remaining allocated amount of Alabama's recreational use injury caused by the DWH oil spill (approximately $83.5 million), or for some portion thereof.

This restoration planning activity is proceeding in accordance with the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: Final Programmatic Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan (PDARP) and Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS). Information on the Restoration Type: Provide and Enhance Recreational Opportunities, as well as the OPA criteria against which project ideas are being evaluated, can be found in the PDARP/PEIS (http://www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov/2016/04/trustees-settle-with-bp-for-natural-resource-injuries-to-the-gulf-of-mexico/) and in the Overview of the PDARP/PEIS (http://www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov/2016/04/trustees-settle-with-bp-for-natural-resource-injuries-to-the-gulf-of-mexico/).

The Alabama TIG would like to hear your project ideas for addressing lost recreational use in Alabama and encourages you to submit restoration project ideas in response to this notice (see ADDRESSES for instructions). If you have submitted project ideas in the past, we will consider those projects along with additional ideas submitted at this time.

The Trustees also seek public involvement in the scoping process and development of the recreational use RP/EIS. This notice explains the scoping process the Alabama TIG will use to gather input from the public. In addition to restoration project ideas, the Alabama TIG invites public comments regarding the scope, content, and any significant issues it should consider in the RP/EIS. Comments may be submitted at any time during the 30-day public scoping period via mail or the internet.

DATES:

Public scoping comments and project ideas must be received by August 5, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

Submitting Project Ideas: You may submit project ideas for addressing lost recreational use in Alabama at the following addresses:

All written scoping comments must be received by the close of the scoping period to be considered.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

• NOAA—Dan Van Nostrand, dan.van-nostrand@noaa.gov.

• AL—Amy Hunter, amy.hunter@dcnr.alabama.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:Introduction

On April 20, 2010, the mobile offshore drilling unit Deepwater Horizon, which was being used to drill a well for BP Exploration and Production Inc. (BP), in the Macondo prospect (Mississippi Canyon 252-MC252), exploded, caught fire and subsequently sank in the Gulf of Mexico, resulting in an unprecedented volume of oil and other discharges from the rig and from the wellhead on the seabed. The DWH oil spill is the largest oil spill in U.S. history, discharging millions of barrels of oil over a period of 87 days. In addition, well over one million gallons of dispersants were applied to the waters of the spill area in an attempt to disperse the spilled oil. An undetermined amount of natural gas was also released to the environment as a result of the spill.

The Deepwater Horizon state and Federal natural resource trustees (DWH Trustees) conducted the natural resource damage assessment (NRDA) for the DWH oil spill under the Oil Pollution Act 1990 (OPA; 33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). Pursuant to OPA, Federal and state agencies act as trustees on behalf of the public to assess natural resource injuries and losses and to determine the actions required to compensate the public for those injuries and losses. OPA further instructs the designated trustees to develop and implement a plan for the restoration, rehabilitation, replacement, or acquisition of the equivalent of the injured natural resources under their trusteeship, including the loss of use and services from those resources from the time of injury until the time of restoration to baseline (the resource quality and conditions that would exist if the spill had not occurred) is complete.

The DWH Trustees are:

• U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), as represented by the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Land Management;

• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), on behalf of the U.S. Department of Commerce;

• U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA);

• U.S. Department of Defense (DOD); 1

1 Although a trustee under OPA by virtue of the proximity of its facilities to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, DOD is not a member of the Trustee Council and does not participate in DWH Trustee decision-making.

• State of Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources and Geological Survey of Alabama;

• State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission; and

• For the State of Texas, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Texas General Land Office, and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

Upon completion of the NRDA, the DWH Trustees reached and finalized a settlement of their natural resource damage claims with BP in a Consent Decree approved by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Pursuant to that Consent Decree, restoration projects in Alabama are now chosen and managed by the Alabama Trustee Implementation Group (TIG). The Alabama TIG is composed of the following Trustees:

• U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), as represented by the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Land Management;

• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), on behalf of the U.S. Department of Commerce;

• U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA);

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA); and

• State of Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources and Geological Survey of Alabama.

The DWH Trustees received extensive comments and restoration project ideas during the scoping process in 2011 for the comprehensive Gulf Spill Restoration Plan and Programmatic EIS prepared by NOAA on behalf of the Trustees (76 FR 9327-9328). The DWH Trustees released this document, titled Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: Final Programmatic Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan (PDARP) and Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) in February 2016. Future restoration projects, including those developed in this recreational use RP/EIS, will be developed in accordance with the PDARP/PEIS.

The purpose of the scoping process is to identify the concerns of the affected public and Federal agencies, states, and Indian tribes, involve the public in the decision making process, facilitate efficient restoration planning and environmental review, define the issues and alternatives that will be examined in detail, and save time by ensuring that draft documents adequately address relevant issues. This scoping notice is also intended to elicit your restoration project ideas. The scoping process reduces paperwork and delay by ensuring that important issues are considered early in the decision making process. Following the scoping process, the Alabama TIG will prepare a draft RP/EIS, at which time the public will be encouraged to comment on the document. A public comment meeting or meetings will be held at that time to gather public input on the document.

Invitation To Comment

The Alabama TIG seeks public involvement in the scoping process and development of the recreational use RP/EIS. The Alabama TIG invites public comment during the 30-day public comment period regarding (1) the scope, content, and any significant issues the Alabama TIG should consider in the RP/EIS, and (2) potential restoration project ideas. The Alabama TIG has published a Scoping Announcement which can be accessed at www.alabamacoastalrestoration.org.

Next Steps

Following scoping, the Alabama TIG intends to release the draft RP/EIS by late summer or early fall 2016. At that time, the Alabama TIG will invite public review and comment on the document.

Administrative Record

The documents comprising the Administrative Record can be viewed electronically at the following location: https://www.doi.gov/deepwaterhorizon/adminrecord.

Authority

The authority of this action is the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), and the implementing Natural Resource Damage Assessment regulations found at 15 CFR part 990.

Pursuant to the provisions of Part 404 of Title 37, Code of Federal Regulations, which implements Public Law 96-517, as amended, the Department of the Air Force announces its intention to grant an exclusive license in favor of Roccor, LLC, having a place of business at 2602 Clover Basin Drive, Suite D, Longmont, CO 80301 in any right, title, and interest the Air Force has in the following patents:

For an objection to the prospective license to be considered, it must be submitted in writing and be received at the following address within fifteen (15) days from the date of publication of this Notice. Written objection should be sent to: James M. Skorich, Esq. 2251 Maxwell Street SE., 377th AFNWC/JAN, Kirtland AFB NM 87117. Phone: (505) 846-5172.

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (U.S.C. 552b, as amended) and 41 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 102-3.140 through 160, the Department of the Army announces the following committee meeting:

Name of Committee: Army Science Board (ASB) Summer Voting Session.

Date: Wednesday, July 27 and Thursday, July 28, 2016.

Time:

Closed portion: 1330-1700 on July 27, 2016.

Open portion: 0900-1200 on July 28, 2016.

Location: Arnold and Mabel Beckman Center of the National Academies of Sciences and Engineering, 100 Academy Way, Irvine, CA 92617.

Purpose of Meeting: The purpose of the meeting is for all members of the Board and its subcommittees to meet and present five of six Fiscal Year 2016 (FY16) studies to the voting members for their consideration, deliberation, and vote.

Agenda: The board will present findings and recommendations for deliberation and vote on the following five FY16 studies:

The Military Benefits and Risks of the Internet of Things. This study is not classified and will be presented during the open portion of the meeting. The purpose of this study is to determine the advisability of the Army applying the commercial practice of networking civilian physical systems into a military analog of the “internet of things (IOT).” As IOT moves beyond the exchange of information in cyber space to the networking of operating systems of physical objects. It will apply and extend relevant findings and recommendations of the Army Science Board studies on cyber vulnerability and electronics countermeasures, the Navy Studies Board network vulnerability study, and the Defense Science Board cyber vulnerability study and autonomy study.

Robotic and Autonomous Systems-of-Systems Architecture. This study contains classified and unclassified material and will be presented in the open and closed portions of the meeting. The objective of this study is to identify the Army formations with the greatest potential to benefit from adoption of robotics and autonomous systems (RAS) technology in both the near term (7-10 years) and the long term (10-25 years). For each selected application, the study will define the benefits of RAS, considering such factors as cost, manpower reduction, survivability, and mission effectiveness. The study team will make maximum use of existing platforms available in the Army, other Services, or commercially.

Countering Enemy Indirect Fires, Target Acquisition Using Unmanned Aerial Systems, and Offensive Cyber/Electronic Warfare Capabilities. This study is classified and will be presented in the closed meeting. The purpose of this study is to conduct a thorough threat assessment of capabilities, both today and in the future, of various adversaries; examine existing and potential means to counter each element of indirect fire systems, to include target acquisition using unmanned aerial systems, and direction finding technologies; develop means to counter each element of the indirect fire systems and determine the effect of countering each element; determine the cost (manpower and materiel) and effectiveness of the counter to each element of the threat system; determine if modern means of engineering and manufacturing can correct the problems in many of today's munitions that cause them to become treaty prohibited; determine the cost-effectiveness of combining various counter means to threat systems; and propose the most cost-effective set of actions necessary to counter future enemy indirect fire capabilities.

Future Armor/Anti-Armor Competition. This study is classified and will be presented in the closed meeting. The study objective is to provide an independent assessment of current and future anti-armor weapons versus armored vehicles.

Army Efforts to Enhance Soldier and Team Performance. This study contains classified and unclassified material and will be presented in the open and closed portions of the meeting. This study will provide an independent assessment of current and future Soldier enhancement techniques the Army may adopt as long-term practices. It will look at the advances in biological, biomedical, and pharmaceutical technologies as they apply to the Army. The study will also analyze trends in the broader area of human enhancement for relevant application to future force capabilities, and consider individual, organizational, and cultural risks of application within the military. Finally, it may consider whether and how cultural values of foreign nations may facilitate the development and application of enhancements that the U.S. Government would see as more extreme or unethical.

Public's Accessibility to the Meeting: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 3.165, and the availability of space, the open portion of this meeting is open to the public. Seating is on a first-come basis. The Beckman Center is fully handicapped accessible. For additional information about public access procedures, contact LTC Stephen Barker at the telephone number or email address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Department of the Army has determined that the closed portion of this meeting is properly closed in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1), which permits Federal Advisory Committee meetings to be closed which are likely to “disclose matters that are (A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive Order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and (B) in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive Order.”

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140d, the Committee is not obligated to allow the public to speak; however, interested persons may submit a written statement for consideration by the Subcommittees. Individuals submitting a written statement must submit their statement to the DFO at the address listed above. Written statements not received at least 10 calendar days prior to the meeting may not be considered by the Board prior to its scheduled meeting.

The DFO will review all timely submissions with the Board's executive committee and ensure they are provided to the specific study members as necessary before, during, or after the meeting. After reviewing written comments, the study chairs and the DFO may choose to invite the submitter of the comments to orally present their issue during a future open meeting.

The DFO, in consultation with the executive committee, may allot a specific amount of time for members of the public to present their issues for discussion.

The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce the following Federal advisory committee meeting of the Defense Business Board. This meeting is open to the public.

DATES:

The public meeting of the Defense Business Board (“the Board”) will be held on Thursday, July 21, 2016. The meeting will begin at 1:00 p.m. and end at 2:30 p.m. (Escort required; see guidance in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section, “Public's Accessibility to the Meeting.”)

ADDRESSES:

Room 3E863 in the Pentagon, Washington, DC (Escort required; see guidance in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section, “Public's Accessibility to the Meeting.”)

This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.140.

Purpose of the Meeting: The Board will receive presentations from its task groups on “Logistics as a Competitive War Fighting Advantage” and “Future Issues Facing the Department” (2017 Administration Transition Report).

The mission of the Board is to examine and advise the Secretary of Defense on overall DoD management and governance providing independent advice which reflects an outside private sector perspective on proven and effective best business practices that can be applied to the DoD.

Availability of Materials for the Meeting: A copy of the agenda and the terms of reference for each Task Group study may be obtained from the Board's Web site at http://dbb.defense.gov/meetings.

Meeting Agenda: 1:00 p.m.-2:30 p.m. —Presentations on “Logistics as a Competitive War Fighting Advantage” and “Future Issues Facing the Department,” followed by Board Deliberation and Vote, if necessary.

Submission of written public comments is strongly encouraged, due to meeting time constraints.

Public's Accessibility to the Meeting: Pursuant to FACA and 41 CFR 102-3.140, this meeting is open to the public. Seating is limited and is on a first-come basis. All members of the public who wish to attend the public meeting must contact Steven Cruddas at the number listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section no later than 12:00 p.m. on Friday, July 15, 2016 to register and make arrangements for a Pentagon escort, if necessary. Public attendees requiring escort should arrive at the Pentagon Visitor's Center, located near the Pentagon Metro Station's south exit (the escalators to the left upon exiting through the turnstiles) and adjacent to the Pentagon Transit Center bus terminal, with sufficient time to complete security screening no later than 12:30 p.m. on July 21. Note: Pentagon tour groups enter through the Visitor's Center, so long lines could form well in advance. To complete security screening, please come prepared to present two forms of identification of which one must be a pictured identification card. Government and military DoD CAC holders are not required to have an escort, but are still required to pass through the Visitor's Center to gain access to the Building.

Special Accommodations: Individuals requiring special accommodations to access the public meeting should contact Steven Cruddas at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

Procedures for Providing Public Comments

Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, and section 10(a)(3) of FACA, the public or interested organizations may submit written comments to the Board about its mission and topics pertaining to this public meeting.

Written comments should be received by the DFO at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting date so that the comments may be made available to the Board for their consideration prior to the meeting. Written comments should be submitted via email to the email address for public comments given in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section in either Adobe Acrobat or Microsoft Word format. Please include in the Subject line “DBB July 2016 Meeting.” Please note that since the Board operates under the provisions of the FACA, as amended, all submitted comments and public presentations will be treated as public documents and may be made available for public inspection, including, but not limited to, being posted on the Board's Web site.

The Department of Energy (DOE), pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, intends to extend for three years an information collection request with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the extended collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

DATES:

Comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before September 6, 2016. If you anticipate difficulty in submitting comments within that period, contact the person listed in ADDRESSES as soon as possible.

ADDRESSES:

Written comments may be sent to Mark Westergard, U.S. Department of Energy, LPO-70, Room 4B-160, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585 or by fax at 202-287-5816.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Mark S. Westergard, LPO.PaperworkReductionAct.Comments@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This information collection request contains: (1) OMB No.: 1910-5134; (2) Information Collection Request Title: 10 CFR part 609—Loan Guarantees for Projects that Employ Innovative Technologies; (3) Type of Request: Extension (4) Purpose: This information collection package covers collection of information necessary to evaluate applications for loan guarantees submitted under Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 16511-16516. Applications for loan guarantees submitted to DOE in response to a solicitation must contain certain information. This information will be used to analyze whether a project is eligible for a loan guarantee and to evaluate the application under criteria specified in 10 CFR part 609. The collection of this information is critical to ensure that the government has sufficient information to determine whether applicants meet the eligibility requirements to qualify for a DOE loan guarantee and to provide DOE with sufficient information to evaluate an applicant's project using the criteria specified in 10 CFR part 609; (5) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 100 Applications; (6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: It is estimated that the total number of annual responses will not exceed 100; (7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 13,000 hours, most of which is likely to be time committed by firms that seek debt and/or equity financing for their projects, regardless of their intent to apply for a DOE loan guarantee; (8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: It is estimated that the annual estimated reporting and recordkeeping cost burden for applicants will not exceed $25,000 per annum.

Authority:

Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 42 U.S.C. 16511-16516 authorizes the collection of information.

On December 30, 2015, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA),1 the Commission instituted a proceeding in Docket No. EL16-25-000. Startrans IO, LLC, 153 FERC ¶ 61,360 (2015). The refund effective date for the proceeding instituted in Docket No. EL16-25-000 is January 6, 2016, the date of publication in the Federal Register2 of notice of the Commission's action in this proceeding.

1 16 U.S.C. 824e (2012).

2 81 FR 476-01 (2016).

Under section 206 of the FPA, if no final decision is rendered by the conclusion of the 180-day period commencing upon initiation of a proceeding pursuant to section 206, the Commission must state why it has failed to render a final decision. In that event the Commission must also provide its best estimate as to when it reasonably expects to make such a decision.

The Commission will be unable to render a final decision within the time prescribed in section 206(b) because the proceeding is pending before a settlement judge.

In a June 13, 2016 report to the Commission, the settlement judge estimated that if the proceeding does not settle, a presiding judge would issue an initial decision within 47 weeks of the designation of a presiding judge. The Commission will require approximately four months after briefs on and opposing exceptions to an initial decision are filed to review the record, the initial decision and the briefs, and to issue an opinion. This estimate is influenced by the issues in the proceeding, as well as the complexity of the issues.

Assuming that the proceeding does not settle, the best estimate of when the Commission will reach a final decision in Docket No. EL16-25-000 is December 31, 2017.

The Secretary of the Commission issues this notice pursuant to section 375.302(w) of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 375.302(w) (2015).

The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

Take notice that on June 28, 2016, North American Electric Reliability Corporation submitted supplemental information to its January 21, 2015 petition for approval of proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-1—Transmission System Planned Performance for Geomagnetic Disturbance Events.

Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.

The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Description: Application for Approval of Internal Reorganization Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act of American Electric Power Service Corporation on behalf of AEP Texas Central Company, AEP Texas North Company and AEP Utilities, Inc.

Filed Date: 6/27/16.

Accession Number: 20160627-5226.

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/18/16.

Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and § 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.

The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), “Performance Evaluation Studies on Wastewater Laboratories” (EPA ICR No. 0234.12, OMB Control No. 2080-0021) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through March 31, 2017. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB.

Abstract: Discharge Monitoring Report-Quality Assurance (DMR-QA) study program participation is mandatory for major and selected minor National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit holders in accordance with Clean Water Act Section 308. The DMR-QA study program is designed to evaluate the analytic ability of laboratories that perform chemical, microbiological and whole effluent toxicity (WET) analyses required in NPDES permits for reporting results in the Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMR). Under DMR-QA, the permit holder is responsible for having their in-house and/or contract laboratories perform proficiency test samples, and submit results for grading to proficiency testing (PT) providers. Graded results are transmitted by either the permittee or PT provider to the appropriate federal or state NPDES regulatory authority. Permit holders are responsible for submitting corrective action reports to the appropriate regulatory authority.

Form Numbers: 6400-01.

Respondents/affected entities: Major and selected minor permit holders under the Clean Water Act's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).

Changes in estimates: There will be an approximate increase of 1,261 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB. This is due to increased discretionary selection of NPDES minor permit holders for DMR-QA participation in the most recent year. Labor costs will be revised upward to take into account changes in employee benefit compensation costs and inflation. Non-labor costs for obtaining proficiency test samples will also likely increase.

EPA issued a notice in the Federal Register of June 6, 2016, concerning opening a comment period for the draft ecological risk assessments of atrazine, simazine, and propazine. This document extends the comment period for 60 days, from August 5, 2016, to October 4, 2016. This comment period is being extended in response to a number of extension requests from various stakeholders citing difficulty commenting during the growing season, and the length, quantity, and complexity of the Risk Assessments.

DATES:

Comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0794, must be received on or before October 4, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

Follow the detailed instructions provided under ADDRESSES in the Federal Register document of June 6, 2016 (81 FR 108) (FRL-9945-06).

This document extends the public comment period established in the Federal Register document of June 6, 2016. In that document, EPA opened a comment period for a draft ecological risk assessments for the registration review of atrazine, simazine, and propazine. EPA is hereby extending the comment period, which was set to end on August 5, 2016, to October 4, 2016.

To submit comments, or access the docket, please follow the detailed instructions provided under ADDRESSES in the Federal Register document of June 6, 2016. If you have questions, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (“CAA” or the “Act”), notice is hereby given of a proposed consent decree to address a lawsuit filed by Appleton Coated, LLC (Appleton or Plaintiff), in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin: Appleton Coated, LLC v. McCarthy, Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-272 (E.D. Wis.). On March 7, 2016, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that Gina McCarthy, in her official capacity as Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), failed to perform a nondiscretionary duty to grant or deny within 60 days a petition submitted by Plaintiff on November 19, 2013, requesting that EPA object to a CAA Title V permit issued by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources to Appleton authorizing the operation of its facility located in Combined Locks, Wisconsin. The proposed consent decree would establish a deadline for EPA to take such action.

DATES:

Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received by August 5, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OGC-2016-0358, online at www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred method); by email to oei.docket@epa.gov; by mail to EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; or by hand delivery or courier to EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. Comments on a disk or CD-ROM should be formatted in Word or ASCII file, avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption, and may be mailed to the mailing address above.

The proposed consent decree would resolve a lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff seeking to compel the Administrator to take actions under CAA section 505(b)(2). Under the terms of the proposed consent decree, EPA would agree to sign its response granting or denying the petition filed by Plaintiff regarding its facility located in Combined Locks, Wisconsin pursuant to section 505(b)(2) of the CAA, on or before October 14, 2016.

Under the terms of the proposed consent decree, EPA would expeditiously deliver notice of EPA's response to the Office of the Federal Register for review and publication following signature of such response. In addition, the proposed consent decree outlines the settlement in regard to Petitioners' attorney fees.

For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will accept written comments relating to the proposed consent decree from persons who are not named as parties or intervenors to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed consent decree if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of Justice determines that consent to this consent decree should be withdrawn, the terms of the consent decree will be affirmed.

II. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Consent DecreeA. How can I get a copy of the consent decree?

The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2016-0358) contains a copy of the proposed consent decree. The official public docket is available for public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566-1752.

An electronic version of the public docket is available through www.regulations.gov. You may use www.regulations.gov to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, key in the appropriate docket identification number then select “search.”

It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing online at www.regulations.gov without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, confidential business information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute is not included in the official public docket or in the electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material, including copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket Center.

B. How and to whom do I submit comments?

You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments.

If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

Use of the www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. The electronic public docket system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, email address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail (email) system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an email comment directly to the Docket without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address is automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announces a public meeting of the Great Lakes Advisory Board (Board) and its Science and Information Subcommittee (SIS). The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) covering FY15-19 and other relevant matters.

DATES:

The meeting will be held on Thursday, July 21, 2016 from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. Central Time, 9:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. Eastern Time. An opportunity will be provided to the public to comment.

ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at the Blue Harbor Resort, Salons E and F, 725 Blue Harbor Dr., Sheboygan, Wisconsin. For those unable to attend in person, this meeting will also be available telephonically. The teleconference number is 877-226-9607 and the teleconference code is 421 858 2837.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Any member of the public wishing further information regarding this meeting may contact Rita Cestaric, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), by email at Cestaric.Rita@epa.gov. General information about the Board and the SIS can be found at http://glri.us/advisory/index.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background: The Board is a federal advisory committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-463. EPA established the Board in 2013 to provide independent advice to the EPA Administrator in her capacity as Chair of the federal Great Lakes Interagency Task Force (IATF). The SIS was established as a subcommittee to the Board to assist the Board by providing technical advice. The Board and SIS comply with the provisions of FACA.

Availability of Meeting Materials: The agenda and other materials in support of the meeting will be available at http://glri.us/advisory/index.html.

Procedures for Providing Public Input: Federal advisory committees provide independent advice to federal agencies. Members of the public can submit relevant comments for consideration by the Board and the SIS. Input from the public to the committees will have the most impact if it provides specific information for consideration. Members of the public wishing to provide comments should contact the DFO directly.

Oral Statements: In general, individuals or groups requesting an oral presentation at this public meeting will be limited to three minutes per speaker, subject to the number of people wanting to comment. Interested parties should contact the DFO in writing (preferably via email) at the contact information noted above by July 18, 2016 to be placed on the list of public speakers for the meeting.

Written Statements: Written statements must be received by July 14, 2016 so that the information may be made available to the committees for consideration. Written statements should be supplied to the DFO in the following formats: One hard copy with original signature and one electronic copy via email. Commenters are requested to provide two versions of each document submitted: one each with and without signatures because only documents without signatures may be published on the GLRI Web page.

Accessibility: For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact the DFO at the phone number or email address noted above, preferably at least seven days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the Government in the Sunshine Act, of the regular meeting of the Farm Credit Administration Board (Board).

DATES:

Date and Time: The regular meeting of the Board will be held at the offices of the Farm Credit Administration in McLean, Virginia, on July 14, 2016, from 9:00 a.m. until such time as the Board concludes its business.

This meeting of the Board will be open to the public (limited space available). Please send an email to VisitorRequest@FCA.gov at least 24 hours before the meeting. In your email include: name, postal address, entity you are representing (if applicable), and telephone number. You will receive an email confirmation from us. Please be prepared to show a photo identification when you arrive. If you need assistance for accessibility reasons, or if you have any questions, contact Dale L. Aultman, Secretary to the Farm Credit Administration Board, at (703) 883-4009. The matters to be considered at the meeting are:

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as Receiver for Williamsburg First National Bank, Kingstree, South Carolina (“the Receiver”) intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed receiver of Williamsburg First National Bank on July 23, 2010. The liquidation of the receivership assets has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors.

Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.

No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.

The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than August 1, 2016.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 30, 2016.Michele Taylor Fennell,Assistant Secretary of the Board.[FR Doc. 2016-15938 Filed 7-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-PFEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEMChange in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than July 20, 2016.

1. Earle Sawyer Wasserman as trustee on behalf of The Wasserman MVB Trust of 2016 and in his individual capacity, and Louise Linda Wasserman as trustee on behalf of The Wasserman MVB Trust of 2016, all of Los Angeles, California; to acquire voting shares of Mission Valley Bancorp and thereby indirectly acquire shares of Mission Valley Bank, both of Sun Valley, California.

The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair methods of competition. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the complaint and the terms of the consent orders—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.

DATES:

Comments must be received on or before July 20, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

Interested parties may file a comment at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/heidelbergitalcementiconsent/ online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Write “HeidelbergCement AG and Italcementi S.p.A.—Consent Agreement; File No. 151 0200” on your comment and file your comment online at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/heidelbergitalcementiconsent/ by following the instructions on the web-based form. If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “HeidelbergCement AG and Italcementi S.p.A.—Consent Agreement; File No. 151 0200” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024.

Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing consent orders to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for June 17, 2016), on the World Wide Web, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/actions.shtm.

You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before July 20, 2016. Write “HeidelbergCement AG and Italcementi S.p.A.—Consent Agreement; File No. 151 0200” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm. As a matter of discretion, the Commission tries to remove individuals' home contact information from comments before placing them on the Commission Web site.

Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential,” as discussed in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.

If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).1 Your comment will be kept confidential only if the FTC General Counsel, in his or her sole discretion, grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest.

1 In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. See FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).

Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/heidelbergitalcementiconsent/ by following the instructions on the web-based form. If this Notice appears at http://www.regulations.gov/#!home, you also may file a comment through that Web site.

Visit the Commission Web site at http://www.ftc.gov to read this Notice and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before July 20, 2016. You can find more information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, in the Commission's privacy policy, at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.

Analysis of Agreement Containing Consent Orders To Aid Public Comment

The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, an Agreement Containing Consent Orders (“Consent Agreement”) designed to remedy the anticompetitive effects resulting from the proposed acquisition of Italcementi S.p.A. (“Italcementi”) by HeidelbergCement AG (“Heidelberg”) (collectively, “Respondents” or “the parties”). Heidelberg and Italcementi compete to sell portland cement in the United States through their respective subsidiaries, Lehigh Hanson, Inc. (“Lehigh”) and Essroc Cement Corp. (“Essroc”). Under the terms of the proposed Consent Agreement, the Respondents are required to divest Italcementi's cement plant in Martinsburg, West Virginia, along with up to ten cement terminals and all related assets to a buyer approved by the Commission (the “Martinsburg Assets”). In addition to the cement plant, the Martinsburg Assets include the following terminals that Essroc has used to distribute cement manufactured at Martinsburg: Ashland, Virginia; Baltimore, Maryland; Bessemer, Pennsylvania; Chesapeake, Virginia; Frederick, Maryland; Leetsdale, Pennsylvania; and Newport News, Virginia. Two additional Essroc terminals located in Columbus and Middlebranch, Ohio are required to be divested at the option of the buyer and subject to the prior approval of the Commission. In addition to these nine terminals that historically serve Essroc's Martinsburg cement plant, Respondents are required to divest to the buyer of the Martinsburg Assets Lehigh's cement terminal in Solvay, New York. Finally, the Consent Agreement requires Essroc to divest its cement terminal in Indianapolis, Indiana to Cemex, Inc. (“Cemex”).

The Consent Agreement has been placed on the public record for thirty days to solicit comments from interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty days, the Commission will again review the Consent Agreement and the comments received, and decide whether it should withdraw from the Consent Agreement, modify it, or make final the Decision and Order (“Order”).

The Transaction

Pursuant to a Share Purchase Agreement dated July 28, 2015, Heidelberg proposes to acquire 100% of Italcementi's voting shares in a two-step transaction. First, Heidelberg has agreed to acquire approximately 45% of Italcementi voting securities held by Italmobiliare S.p.A. The aggregate consideration for these shares totals approximately $1.9 billion. Following the closing of the Share Purchase, Heidelberg will launch a mandatory public cash tender offer for the remaining outstanding shares of Italcementi, for an expected purchase price of approximately $2.3 billion. The total value of Italcementi shares to be acquired is thus approximately $4.2 billion.

The Commission's Complaint alleges that the proposed transaction, if consummated, would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 18, and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 45, by substantially lessening competition in certain regional markets in the United States for the manufacture and sale of portland cement. The proposed Consent Agreement will remedy the alleged violations by preserving the competition that would otherwise be eliminated by the proposed acquisition.

The Parties

Headquartered in Germany, Heidelberg is the second-largest global producer of cement, ready-mix concrete, and aggregates. It operates eighty-five cement plants in more than forty countries around the globe. Heidelberg operates as Lehigh in the United States, where it has twelve cement plants, one slag cement grinding facility, two cement-grinding facilities, and thirty-nine cement terminals.

Italcementi is an Italian public corporation that operates in the United States through its subsidiary, Essroc. Worldwide, Italcementi is the fourth-largest producer of cement. Essroc operates six cement plants and twenty-one cement terminals in North America.

The Relevant Products and Structure of the Markets

In the United States, both parties manufacture and sell portland cement. Portland cement is an essential ingredient in making concrete, a cheap and versatile building material. Because portland cement has no close substitute and the cost of cement usually represents a relatively small percentage of a project's overall construction costs, few customers are likely to switch to other products in response to a small but significant increase in the price of portland cement.

The primary purchasers of portland cement are ready-mix concrete firms and producers of concrete products. These customers usually pick up portland cement from a cement company's plant or terminal in trucks. Because portland cement is a heavy and relatively cheap commodity, transportation costs limit the distance customers can economically travel to pick up cement. The precise scope of the area that can be served by a particular plant or terminal depends on a number of factors, including the density of the specific region and local transportation costs.

Due to transportation costs, cement markets are local or regional in nature. The relevant geographic markets in which to analyze the effects of the proposed acquisition on portland cement competition are (1) Baltimore-Washington and surrounding areas; (2) Richmond, VA and surrounding areas; (3) Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News and surrounding areas (i.e., Hampton Roads); (4) Syracuse, NY metropolitan and surrounding areas; and (5) Indianapolis and surrounding areas. Each of the relevant markets is highly concentrated, and the merger would reduce the number of competitively significant suppliers from three to two in each of the markets.

Entry

Entry into the relevant portland cement markets would not be timely, likely, or sufficient in magnitude, character, and scope to deter or counteract the anticompetitive effects of the proposed transaction. It is costly and time consuming to enter a new geographic market. Constructing a new portland cement plant of sufficient size to be competitive would likely cost over $300 million and take more than five years to permit, design, and build; even the expansion of an existing facility would likely cost hundreds of millions of dollars and take four or more years to complete. Building competitive cement distribution terminals is also difficult and time consuming. It can take more than two years to acquire a suitable location, obtain the necessary permits, and complete construction of a competitive terminal in the relevant markets. Given the difficulties of entry, it is unlikely that any new entry could be accomplished in a timely manner in the relevant markets to defeat a likely price increase caused by the proposed acquisition.

Effects of the Acquisition

Unless remedied, the proposed merger would likely result in harm to competition in each of the relevant portland cement markets. Those markets are already highly concentrated. By reducing the number of significant competitors, the merger would result in an effective duopoly in each relevant market. As explained below, the evidence shows that absent the required divestitures, the merger would likely both produce unilateral and coordinated effects in the relevant markets.

For many customers in the relevant markets, the parties are the two most proximate suppliers, and other rival cement suppliers are more distant and thus have higher shipping costs. The merger would likely force these customers to pay higher prices by eliminating their ability to play one party off against the other in individual negotiations to obtain better cement prices. After the acquisition, the merged party could effectively target customers for whom the merged parties are the nearest competitors with price increases. The merged party could also target customers that prefer to buy cement from multiple sources to protect against supply disruptions with price increases because the merger would leave such customers with only two significant suppliers.

The proposed transaction is also likely to enhance the likelihood of coordinated interaction by reducing the number of significant suppliers in relevant markets that are already vulnerable to coordination. The relevant markets are vulnerable because they are highly concentrated; cement is a homogenous product; and sales are small, frequent, and usually not made pursuant to long-term contracts. The markets also exhibit a high degree of transparency: competitors are commonly aware of each other's production capacities, costs, sales volumes, prices, and customers. The evidence indicates that the merging firms already closely monitor competitors' cement pricing and sales, which facilitates coordination.

The Consent Agreement

The proposed Consent Agreement eliminates the competitive concerns raised by Heidelberg's proposed acquisition of Italcementi by requiring the divestiture of one party's cement operations in each of the relevant markets. Italcementi is required to divest a cement plant in Martinsburg, West Virginia, including its quarry and all other related assets, together with up to ten cement distribution terminals in Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, to a Commission-approved buyer or buyers, at no minimum price, within 120 days of closing of the proposed transaction. Furthermore, Heidelberg is required to divest its distribution terminal in Solvay, New York, and all related assets to the Commission-approved buyer of the Martinsburg Assets, in order to remedy the competitive effects of the proposed acquisition in the Syracuse market. Finally, Essroc must divest its cement distribution terminal in Indianapolis and all related assets to Cemex within ten days of the closing of the proposed transaction to remedy the competitive effects of the proposed acquisition in the Indianapolis market.

The Commission's goal in evaluating possible purchasers of divested assets is to maintain the competitive environment that existed prior to the proposed acquisition. If the Commission determines that any of the identified buyers is not an acceptable acquirer, the proposed Order requires the parties to divest the assets to a Commission-approved acquirer within ninety days of the Commission notifying the parties that the proposed acquirer is not acceptable. If the Commission determines that the manner in which any divestiture was accomplished is not acceptable, the Commission may direct the parties, or appoint a divestiture trustee, to effect such modifications as may be necessary to satisfy the requirements of the Order.

The Consent Agreement also contains an Order to Maintain Assets to protect the viability, marketability, and competitiveness of the divestiture asset packages until the assets are divested to a buyer or buyers approved by the Commission.

To ensure compliance with the proposed Order, the Commission has agreed to appoint an Interim Monitor to ensure that Heidelberg and Italcementi comply with all of their obligations pursuant to the Consent Agreement and to keep the Commission informed about the status of the transfer of the rights and assets to appropriate purchasers.

The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the Consent Agreement, and it is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the proposed Decision and Order or to modify its terms in any way.

Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

ACTION:

Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.

SUMMARY:

Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement concerning notification of ownership changes.

DATES:

Submit comments on or before August 5, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for GSA, Room 10236, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally submit a copy to GSA by any of the following methods:

• Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching the OMB control number. Select the link “Submit a Comment” that corresponds with “Information Collection 9000-0115, Notification of Ownership Changes”. Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 9000-0115, Notification of Ownership Changes” on your attached document.

Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite Information Collection 9000-0115, Notification of Ownership Changes, in all correspondence related to this collection. Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal and/or business confidential information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check www.regulations.gov, approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

Contractors who experience a change in ownership are required to provide the Government adequate and timely notice of this event, per the FAR clause at 52.215-19, Notification of Ownership Changes. The frequency of this information collection is variable, depending on changes in ownership.

A notice was published in the Federal Register at 81 FR 21871 on April 13, 2016. Two comments were received, but were irrelevant to the subject matter. One was aimed at promoting a product for grass-roots advocacy groups. The other simply contained a greeting.

B. Annual Reporting Burden

Respondents: 138.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 138.

Hours per Response: 1.5.

Total Burden Hours: 207.

C. Public Comments

Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

ACTION:

Notice with comment period.

SUMMARY:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection entitled “Developing Effective Messages about Excessive Alcohol Consumption: Formative Focus Groups with Adult Drinkers and Abstainers.” The CDC will use the information collected to guide the development of health communication messages.

DATES:

Written comments must be received on or before September 6, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2016-0060 by any of the following methods:

Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket Number. All relevant comments received will be posted without change to Regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to Regulations.gov.

Please note: All public comment should be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking portal (Regulations.gov) or by U.S. mail to the address listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact the Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email: omb@cdc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed information collection as described below.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Excessive alcohol use, including binge drinking, is responsible for approximately 88,000 deaths in the U.S. annually—including one in 10 deaths among working-age adults ages 20-64. On average, for each death due to alcohol, an individual's life is cut short by 30 years. Excessive alcohol use can also lead to motor vehicle crashes; intimate partner violence; and risky sexual behaviors, increasing the risk of HIV, other sexually transmitted infections, and unintended pregnancy. Over time, excessive alcohol use can lead to alcohol dependence, liver disease, high blood pressure, heart attack, stroke, and certain kinds of cancer. Furthermore, in 2010, excessive alcohol use cost the United States government $249 billion, or $2.05 per drink.

Binge drinking (defined as four or more drinks on an occasion for women or five or more drinks on an occasion for men) accounts for more than half of the deaths and three-quarters of the economic costs of excessive drinking. More than 38 million U.S. adults binge drink about four times a month, averaging eight drinks per binge. However, most (90%) binge drinkers are not alcohol dependent, presenting an opportunity for prevention through messages that improve voluntary compliance with recommended guidelines. States and communities can prevent binge drinking by supporting evidence-based strategies, such as those recommended by the Community Preventive Services Task Force; however, these strategies are underused. Understanding the type of information and messages that the larger community—those who drink but not excessively or abstain from drinking in addition to those who engage in binge drinking—respond to will be essential in developing the communication strategy for future outreach.

CDC plans to collect information needed to improve understanding of current knowledge, perceptions, and attitudes related to excessive alcohol consumption. Respondents will be 72 adults ages 21-64 years who agree to participate in focus group discussions of about 1.5 hours each. A total of 12 focus groups are planned in three geographically diverse locations with appropriate facilities (four focus group per location). Each focus group will involve six respondents and will be guided by a professional moderator. Through an initial screening process, CDC will also collect the information needed to assess knowledge, perceptions, and attitudes across various audience segments: Those who engage in binge drinking, those who drink but not excessively, and those who abstain from drinking.

The focus group discussions will be analyzed using qualitative tools and leverage a structured approach to thematic analysis. Findings from this information collection will guide the CDC Alcohol Program in the development and refinement of targeted messages to effectively communicate the problem of excessive alcohol use, and encourage support for effective prevention strategies. The ultimate goal of the subsequent messaging is a reduction in binge drinking, which will in turn reduce alcohol-related injuries and deaths among adults.

OMB approval is requested for one year. Participation is voluntary and there are no costs to respondents other than their time.

Adults aged 21-64Questionnaire/Screener28815/6024Focus Group7211.5108Total132Jeffrey M. Zirger,Health Scientist, Acting Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.[FR Doc. 2016-15958 Filed 7-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-PDEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICESCenters for Disease Control and PreventionAdvisory Committee to the Director (ACD), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention—State, Tribal, Local and Territorial (STLT) Subcommittee

In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following meeting of the aforementioned subcommittee:

Status: Open to the public, limited only by the space available. The meeting room accommodates approximately 20 people. The public is welcome to participate during the public comment, which is tentatively scheduled from 3:15 to 3:35 p.m. This meeting is also available by teleconference. Please dial (888) 233-0592 and enter code 33288611.

Purpose: The Subcommittee will provide advice to the CDC Director through the ACD on strategies, future needs, and challenges faced by State, Tribal, Local and Territorial health agencies, and will provide guidance on opportunities for CDC.

Matters for Discussion: The STLT subcommittee members will discuss progress on implementation of ACD-adopted recommendations related to the health department of the future, other emerging challenges and how CDC can best support STLT health departments in the transforming health system.

The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

Elaine L. Baker,Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.[FR Doc. 2016-15932 Filed 7-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-PDEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICESCenters for Disease Control and PreventionBoard of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (BSC, NCIPC)

In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces, the following meeting of the aforementioned committee:

Time and Date: 1:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m., August 1, 2016 (CLOSED).

Place: Teleconference.

Status: The meeting as designated above will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in Section 552b(c)(4) and (6), Title 5, U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office.

Purpose: The Board of Scientific Counselors makes recommendations regarding policies, strategies, objectives, and priorities; and reviews progress toward injury prevention goals and provides evidence in injury prevention-related research and programs. The Board also provides advice on the appropriate balance of intramural and extramural research, the structure, progress, and performance of intramural programs. The Board is designed to provide guidance on extramural scientific program matters, including the: (1) Review of extramural research concepts for funding opportunity announcements; (2) conduct of Secondary Peer Review of extramural research grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts applications received in response to the funding opportunity announcements as it relates to the Center's programmatic balance and mission; (3) submission of secondary review recommendations to the Center Director of applications to be considered for funding support; (4) review of research portfolios, and (5) review of program proposals. The board shall provide guidance on the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control's programs and research activities by conducting scientific peer review of intramural research and programs within the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control; by ensuring adherence to Office of Management and Budget requirements for intramural peer review; and by monitoring the overall direction, focus, and success of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

Matters for Discussion: The BSC, NCIPC will meet to conduct a Secondary Peer Review of extramural research grant applications received in response to two (2) Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOAs): Evaluation of Practice-based Strategies from CDC's Rape Prevention and Education (RPE) Program to Build Evidence for Primary Prevention of Sexual Violence, FOA RFA-CE-16-005; PHS 2014-02 Omnibus Solicitation of the NIH, CDC, FDA and ACF for Small Business Innovation Research Grant Applications (Parent SBIR [R43/R44]), FOA PA-14-071. Applications will be assessed for applicability to the Center's mission and programmatic balance. Recommendations from the secondary review will be voted upon and the applications will be forwarded to the Center Director for consideration for funding support.

The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

ACTION:

Notice of issuance of final publication.

SUMMARY:

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the availability of the following publication: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Quality Assurance Review of B Readers' Classifications Submitted in the Department of Labor (DOL) Black Lung Benefits Program.

ADDRESSES:

The document may be obtained at the following link: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/chestradiography/breader-blacklung-benefits-qa-program.html.

Dated: June 30, 2016.Frank Hearl,Chief of Staff, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.[FR Doc. 2016-15978 Filed 7-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-19-PDEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICESOpportunity To Co-Sponsor Office for Human Research Protections Educational WorkshopsAGENCY:

Office for Human Research Protections, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.

ACTION:

Notice.

SUMMARY:

The Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) announces the opportunity for non-federal public and private sector entities to co-sponsor OHRP Educational Workshops. Potential co-sponsors must have an approved Federal-wide Assurance with OHRP, be recipients of HHS grants for human subject research, and have a demonstrated interest and experience in the protection of human subjects in research. Potential co-sponsors must be willing to participate substantively in the co-sponsored activity.

DATES:

Requests for co-sponsorships of OHRP Educational Workshops are received throughout the year at the email address below. OHRP co-sponsors a limited number of Educational Workshops with institutions each year. Requests are being received for Educational Workshops that will take place in the fall of 2016 or beyond.

ADDRESSES:

Requests for co-sponsorships should be sent to OHRP-EDU@HHS.GOV with “Co-sponsorship for OHRP Educational Workshops” in the subject field or by mail to OHRP at 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 200, Rockville MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

OHRP-EDU@HHS.GOV or call OHRP's Division of Education and Development (DED) at 240-453-6900.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Description

The Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) provides leadership in the protection of the rights, welfare, and well-being of subjects involved in research conducted or supported by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The OHRP is a program office within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, HHS.

OHRP provides clarification and guidance, develops educational programs and materials, maintains regulatory oversight, and provides advice on ethical and regulatory issues in biomedical and behavioral research. OHRP also supports the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Human Research Protections (SACHRP), which advises the Secretary of Health and Human Services on issues of human subject protections.

Consistent with OHRP's mission and the applicable statutory authority, 42 U.S.C. 289, OHRP Educational Workshops aim to provide clarification and guidance to the public on how to interpret, implement, and comply with the HHS-regulations on the protection of human subjects in research. Workshops are moderate size half-day or one-day events that typically accept between 120 and 140 attendees.

Co-sponsors will assist with workshop and agenda development, coordination, financial management, and meeting logistics in conjunction with OHRP staff.

Co-sponsors can charge registration fees to recover costs associated with the events; however, co-sponsors may not set registration fees at an amount higher than necessary to recover related conference expenses. Further, we expect co-sponsors to be solely responsible for collecting and handling any registration fees collected.

Eligibility for Co-Sponsorship: The co-sponsoring institution must have an approved Federal-wide Assurance with OHRP and be a recipient of HHS grants for human subject research. The selected co-sponsoring organization(s) shall furnish the necessary personnel, materials, services, and facilities to administer its responsibility for the workshop. These duties will be outlined in a co-sponsorship agreement with OHRP that will set forth the details of the co-sponsored activity, including the requirements that any fees collected by the co-sponsor shall be limited to the amount necessary to cover the co-sponsor's related conference expenses.

Co-sponsoring institutions will be asked to sign a Co-Sponsorship Agreement with HHS. This Co-Sponsorship Agreement does not represent an endorsement by OHRP of the co-sponsors' policies, positions, or activities. Additionally, this agreement will not affect any determination concerning activities by the co-sponsors that are regulated by OHRP.

The following Model Co-Sponsorship Agreement is presented only as an example. The assignment of duty and responsibilities in the Agreement will be discussed and agreed upon with each co-sponsor on a case by case basis and as applicable.

Model Co-Sponsorship Agreement

The Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) and [co-sponsor] (if more than one co-sponsor, include all names followed by “jointly referred to as co-sponsoring institutions”) agree to co-sponsor an Educational Workshop according to the understanding expressed below:

1. Background

The event is an OHRP Educational Workshop/Event tentatively titled, [title].

The Workshop/Event will be held on [Date] at [Location].

The Workshop/Event is a [half/1-day] educational outreach initiative that provides education and training focusing on the HHS policies and regulations on human research protections and their applicability. The Workshop/Event is designed for professionals engaged in human subject research, including, but not limited to, institutional review board (IRB) chairs, members and staff, investigators and research staff, and institutional officials.

The co-sponsoring institution for this educational activity, [co-sponsor], has an approved Federal-wide Assurance with OHRP and is a recipient of HHS grants for human subject research. OHRP has collaborated with [co-sponsor] (if more than one co-sponsor, include, [co-sponsor], and others) to develop a comprehensive agenda that addresses the provisions of the HHS Protection of Human Subjects Regulations, 45 CFR part 46, and the ethical principles of The Belmont Report.

OHRP fulfills its mission pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 289 by providing an education program where clarification and guidance with respect to ethical issues raised in connection with biomedical or behavioral research involving human subjects can be addressed. This workshop/event co-sponsored with [co-sponsor] is an important component of the OHRP educational program for fiscal year [year].

2. Responsibilities for Developing the Event

OHRP and [co-sponsor] have collaborated, and will continue to collaborate, on all phases of the development of the workshop/event, including:

• Establishing a planning committee;

• Identifying program objectives;

• Developing, reviewing and approving the final agenda;

• Preparing web-based advertising; and

• Conducting the workshop/event.

[Co-sponsor] has or will:

• Advertise and promote the workshop/event to achieve an attendance of around 120 or more individual attendants;

• Secure an appropriate facility for the Workshop/Event;

• Provide audio-visual equipment;

• Handle or support the collection of registration fees, if any;

• Provide administrative staff to conduct registration, obtain accreditations for continuing education units as appropriate, and handle all logistical support leading up to and at the Workshop/Event;

• Distribute and collect from guest speakers signed authorization forms (wording and format provided by OHRP) that permit OHRP to retain and re-use speakers' presentations as well as any video-recordings of the presentations obtained in the course of the Workshop/Event for educational purposes;

• Provide OHRP with copies of guest speakers' slide presentations (slides and any associated video-recordings) as well as video-recordings of the workshop/event sessions, if any, no later than 4 months after the workshop/event;

• Produce and share with OHRP a summary and evaluation report as well as the list of participants with their email information.

OHRP will provide program support to [co-sponsor], provide advertising, and fund the travel of HHS staff to serve as faculty. [Co-sponsor] will be responsible for all other costs of the workshop/event.

3. Registration Fees and Other Charges

[Co-sponsor] has established a tentative registration fee schedule, i.e., $[XXX] for general attendees [$XXX] for early registration. These registration fees are no higher than necessary for [co-sponsor] to recover its share of the costs for co-sponsoring this event and may be lowered, as the arrangements for the workshop/event are made and expenses are incurred.

HHS staff will be serving as faculty members and resource people. There is no attendance fee for HHS staff.

[Co-sponsor] does not intend to sell educational materials pertaining to this event.

4. Independently Sponsored Portions of Event

[Co-sponsor] may decide to independently provide food for lunch and/or at breaks for the workshop/event attendees as a discrete portion of the event. The Workshop/Event agenda will indicate that this portion of the event is independently sponsored by [co-sponsor]. OHRP staff and resources will not be used to develop, promote, or otherwise support this portion of the event.

5. Fund Raising

[Co-sponsor] will make clear in any solicitation for funds to cover its share of the event costs that it, not OHRP, is asking for the funds. [Co-sponsor] will not imply that OHRP endorses any fund raising activities in connection with the workshop/event. [Co-sponsor] will make clear to donors that any gift will go solely toward defraying the sponsorship expenses of the event, not to OHRP.

6. Promotional Activity

[Co-sponsor] will not use the event primarily as a vehicle to sell or promote products or services. [Co-sponsor] will ensure that any incidental promotional activity does not imply that OHRP endorses any of its products or services. [Co-sponsor] will make reasonable efforts, subject to OHRP review, to segregate any incidental promotional activity from the main activities of the event.

7. Event Publicity and Endorsements

[Co-sponsor] will not use the name of OHRP or any of its components, except in factual publicity for the specific event. Factual publicity includes dates, times, locations, purposes, agendas, fees, and speakers involved with the event. Such factual publicity shall not imply that the involvement of OHRP in the event serves as an endorsement of the general policies, activities, or products of [co-sponsor] where confusion could result, publicity should be accompanied by a disclaimer to the effect that no endorsement by OHRP is intended. [Co-sponsor] will clearly state on the agenda that OHRP did not provide funding for the breaks and lunch at the forum. [Co-sponsor] will state on the agenda which organization provided the funding for the breaks and lunch at the forum. [Co-sponsor] will clear all publicity materials for the event with OHRP to ensure compliance with this paragraph.

8. Records

Records concerning the event shall account fully and accurately for the financial commitments and expenditures of OHRP and [co-sponsor]. Such records shall reflect, at a minimum, the amounts, sources, and uses of all funds.

9. Public Availability

This co-sponsorship agreement, as well as the financial records described in paragraph 8, shall be publicly available upon request.

10. Co-Sponsorship Guidance

OHRP and [co-sponsor] will abide by the legal memorandum of August 8, 2002, “Co-Sponsorship Guidance,” issued by the HHS Designated Agency Ethics Official.

Evaluation Criteria: After engaging in exploratory discussions with potential co-sponsors, OHRP will select the co-sponsor or co-sponsors that would best fulfill OHRP's mission. Evaluation may include the following criteria:

Office for Human Research Protections, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.

ACTION:

Notice.

SUMMARY:

The Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) announces the opportunity for non-federal public and private sector entities to co-sponsor OHRP Research Community Forums (RCFs). Potential co-sponsors must have an approved Federal-wide Assurance with OHRP, be recipients of HHS grants for human subject research, and have a demonstrated interest and experience in the protection of human subjects in research. Potential co-sponsors must also be capable of sponsoring and managing various discrete sessions or events associated with the RCF and be willing to participate substantively in the co-sponsored activity.

DATES:

Requests for co-sponsorships of RCFs are received throughout the year at the address below. OHRP expects to co-sponsor up to four RCFs each year. Requests are being received for RCFs that will take place in 2018 or beyond.

ADDRESSES:

Requests for co-sponsorships should be sent to OHRP-EDU@HHS.GOV with “Co-sponsorship for OHRP RCFs” in the subject field or by mail to OHRP at 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 200, Rockville MD 20852.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Description

The Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) provides leadership in the protection of the rights, welfare, and well-being of subjects involved in research conducted or supported by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The OHRP is a program office within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, HHS.

OHRP provides clarification and guidance, develops educational programs and materials, maintains regulatory oversight, and provides advice on ethical and regulatory issues in biomedical and behavioral research. OHRP also supports the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Human Research Protections (SACHRP), which advises the Secretary of Health and Human Services on issues of human subject protections.

Consistent with OHRP's mission and the applicable statutory authority, 42 U.S.C. 289, the Research Community Forum (RCF) provides an educational opportunity to discuss with the public and to provide clarification and guidance regarding contemporary ethical issues in the protection of human research participants. The Research Community Forum (RCF) consists of two educational activities: A 1-day conference (RCF-C) focused on ethical concerns and regulatory issues pertaining to contemporary issues in human research protections, and a 1-day interactive workshop (RCF-W) focused on the interpretation and application of HHS regulations and policies. OHRP will provide a small co-sponsoring financial contribution to support the RCF.

Co-sponsors will assist with conference and agenda development, coordination, financial management, and meeting logistics in conjunction with OHRP staff.

Co-sponsors can charge registration fees to recover costs associated with the events; however, co-sponsors may not set registration fees at an amount higher than necessary to recover related conference expenses. Further, we expect co-sponsors to be solely responsible for collecting and handling any registration fees collected.

Eligibility for Co-Sponsorship: The co-sponsoring institution must have an approved Federal-wide Assurance with OHRP and be a recipient of HHS grants for human subject research. The selected co-sponsoring organization(s) shall furnish the necessary personnel, materials, services, and facilities to administer its responsibility for the conference. These duties will be outlined in a co-sponsorship agreement with OHRP that will set forth the details of the co-sponsored activity, including the requirements that any fees collected by the co-sponsor shall be limited to the amount necessary to cover the co-sponsor's related conference expenses.

Co-sponsoring institutions will be asked to sign a Co-Sponsorship Agreement with HHS. This Co-Sponsorship Agreement does not represent an endorsement by OHRP of the co-sponsors' policies, positions, or activities. Additionally, this Agreement will not affect any determination concerning activities by the co-sponsors that are regulated by OHRP.

The following Model Co-Sponsorship Agreement is presented only as an example. The assignment of duty and responsibilities in the Agreement will be discussed and agreed upon with each o-sponsor on a case by case basis and as applicable.

Model Co-Sponsorship Agreement

The Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) and [co-sponsor] (if more than one co-sponsor, include all names followed by “jointly referred to as co-sponsoring institutions”) agree to co-sponsor a Research Community Forum according to the understanding expressed below:

1. Background

The event is an OHRP Research Community Forum (RCF) tentatively titled, [Title].

The forum will be held on [Date] at [Location].

The Forum is a 2-day educational outreach initiative that provides a 1-day conference focusing on ethical and regulatory issues pertaining to hot-button or topical matter in human research protections, and a 1-day interactive workshop focusing on the HHS regulations and policies on human research protections and their applicability. The Forum features distinguished faculty members from academia and the Federal Government. It is designed for professionals engaged in or who have interest in the protection of human subjects in research. These may include bioethicists, academics, institutional review board (IRB) chairs, members and staff, investigators and research staff, and institutional officials.

The co-sponsoring institution for this educational event, [co-sponsor], has an approved Federal-wide Assurance with OHRP and is a recipient of HHS grants for human subject research. OHRP has collaborated with [co-sponsor] (if more than one co-sponsor, include: “, [co-sponsor], and others.”) to develop a comprehensive agenda that addresses the provisions of the HHS Protection of Human Subjects Regulations, 45 CFR part 46, and the ethical principles of The Belmont Report.

OHRP fulfills its mission, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 289, by providing an education program where clarification and guidance with respect to ethical issues raised in connection with biomedical or behavioral research involving human subjects can be addressed. This forum co-sponsored with [co-sponsor] is an important component of the OHRP educational program for fiscal year [year].

2. Responsibilities for Developing the Event

OHRP and [Co-sponsor] have collaborated, and will continue to collaborate, on all phases of event planning, including:

• Establishing a planning committee;

• Identifying program objectives;

• Developing, reviewing and approving the final agenda; and

• Preparing web-based advertising.

[Co-sponsor] has or will:

• Create an event Web site;

• Secure a facility for the Forum (conference and workshop);

• Provide audio-visual equipment;

• Arrange for professional video-recording of presentation(s) by speaker(s) [XXX] at OHRP's request;

• Handle or support the collection of registration fees;

• Provide administrative staff to develop the program, conduct registration, obtain accreditations for continuing education units as appropriate and handle all logistical support leading up to and at the forum;

• Distribute and collect from speakers signed authorization forms (wording and format provided by OHRP) that permit OHRP to retain and re-use speakers' presentations as well as any video recordings of the presentations obtained in the course of the Forum for educational purposes;

• Provide OHRP with copies of the speakers' slide presentations (slides and any associated video recordings), as well as any video-recordings of conference presentations obtained in the course of the Forum, no later than 4 months after the RCF;

• Produce and share with OHRP a summary and evaluation report as well as the list of participants with their email information.

3. Registration Fees and Other Charges

[Co-sponsor] has established a tentative registration fee schedule, $[Amount] for the 1-day conference; $[Amount] for the 1-day workshop; and $[Amount] when registering for both conference and workshop. These registration fees are no higher than necessary for [co-sponsor] to recover its share of the costs for co-sponsoring this event and may be lowered, as the arrangements for the forum event are made and expenses are incurred.

HHS staff will be serving as faculty members and resource people. There is no attendance fee for HHS staff.

[Co-sponsor] does not intend to sell educational materials pertaining to this event.

4. Independently Sponsored Portions of Event

[Co-sponsor] may decide to independently provide food for lunch and/or at breaks for the Workshop/Event attendees as a discrete portion of the event. The workshop/event agenda will indicate that this portion of the event is independently sponsored by [co-sponsor]. OHRP staff and resources will not be used to develop, promote, or otherwise support this portion of the event.

5. Fund Raising

[Co-sponsor] will make clear in any solicitation for funds to cover its share of the event costs that it, not OHRP, is asking for the funds. [Co-sponsor] will not imply that OHRP endorses any fund raising activities in connection with the Forum. [Co-sponsor] will make clear to donors that any gift will go solely toward defraying the sponsorship expenses of the event, not to OHRP.

6. Promotional Activity

[Co-sponsor] will not use the event primarily as a vehicle to sell or promote products or services. [Co-sponsor] will ensure that any incidental promotional activity does not imply that OHRP endorses any of its products or services. [Co-sponsor] will make reasonable efforts, subject to OHRP review, to segregate any incidental promotional activity from the main activities of the event.

7. Event Publicity and Endorsements

[Co-sponsor] will not use the name of OHRP or any of its components, except in factual publicity for the specific event. Factual publicity includes dates, times, locations, purposes, agendas, fees, and speakers involved with the event. Such factual publicity shall not imply that the involvement of OHRP in the event serves as an endorsement of the general policies, activities, or products of [co-sponsor]; where confusion could result, publicity should be accompanied by a disclaimer to the effect that no endorsement by OHRP is intended. [Co-sponsor] will clearly state on the agenda that OHRP did not provide funding for the breaks and lunch at the forum. [Co-sponsor] will state on the agenda which organization provided the funding for the breaks and lunch at the forum. [Co-sponsor] will clear all publicity materials for the event with OHRP to ensure compliance with this paragraph.

8. Records

Records concerning the event shall account fully and accurately for the financial commitments and expenditures of OHRP and [co-sponsor]. Such records shall reflect, at a minimum, the amounts, sources, and uses of all funds.

9. Public Availability

This co-sponsorship agreement, as well as the financial records described in paragraph 8, shall be publicly available upon request.

10. Co-sponsorship Guidance

OHRP and [co-sponsor] will abide by the legal memorandum of August 8, 2002, “Co-Sponsorship Guidance,” issued by the HHS Designated Agency Ethics Official.

Evaluation Criteria: After engaging in exploratory discussions with potential co-sponsors, OHRP will select the co-sponsor or co-sponsors that would best fulfill OHRP's mission. Evaluation may include the following criteria:

In compliance the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Indian Health Service (IHS) invites the general public to comment on the information collection titled, “Application for Participation in the IHS Scholarship Program,” Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control No. 0917-0006. IHS is requesting OMB to approve an extension for this collection, which expires on September 30, 2016.

DATES:

Comment Due Date: September 6, 2016. Your comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having full effect if received within 60 days of the date of this publication.

ADDRESSES:

Send your written comments, requests for more information on the collection, or requests to obtain a copy of the data collection instrument and instructions to Mr. Robert Pittman by one of the following methods:

This previously approved information collection project was last published in the Federal Register (78 FR 49532) on August 14, 2013 and allowed 30 days for public comment. No public comment was received in response to the notice. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment. A copy of the supporting statement is available at www.regulations.gov (see Docket ID IHS-2016-0005).

Information Collection: Title: “Application for Participation in the IHS Scholarship Program,” OMB Control No. 0917-0006. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of the currently approved information collection “Application for Participation in the IHS Scholarship Program,” OMB Control No. 0917-0006. Form Number(s): IHS-856-3, IHS-856-5 through 856-19, IHS-856-21 through 856-24, IHS-817, and IHS-818 are retained for use by the IHS Scholarship Program (IHSSP) as part of this current information collection request. Reporting forms are found on the IHS Web site at www.ihs.gov/scholarship. Need and Use of Information Collection: The IHS Scholarship Branch needs this information for program administration and uses the information to: solicit, process, and award IHS Pre-graduate, Preparatory, and/or Health Professions Scholarship recipients; monitor the academic performance of recipients; and to place recipients at payback sites. The IHSSP application is electronically available on the internet at the IHS Web site at: https://www.ihs.gov/scholarship/applynow/. Affected Public: Individuals, not-for-profit institutions and State, local or Tribal Governments. Type of Respondents: Students pursuing health care professions.

The table below provides: Types of data collection instruments, Estimated number of respondents, Number of responses per respondent, Annual number of responses, Average burden hour per response, and Total annual burden hours.

There are no direct costs to respondents other than their time to voluntarily complete the forms and submit them for consideration. The estimated cost in time to respondents, as a group, is $46,386 [4,303 burden hours × $10.78 per hour (2016 GS-3 hourly base pay rate)]. This total dollar amount is based upon the number of burden hours per data collection instrument, rounded to the nearest dollar.

Requests for Comments: Your written comments and/or suggestions are invited on one or more of the following points:

(a) Whether the information collection activity is necessary to carry out an agency function;

(b) whether the agency processes the information collected in a useful and timely fashion;

(c) the accuracy of the public burden estimate (the estimated amount of time needed for individual respondents to provide the requested information);

(d) whether the methodology and assumptions used to determine the estimates are logical;

(e) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information being collected; and

(f) ways to minimize the public burden through the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comment Due Date: Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having full effect if received within 60 days of the date of this publication.

The invention listed below is co-owned by an agency of the U.S. Government and is available for licensing and/or co-development in the U.S. in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404 to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally-funded research and development. Foreign patent applications are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage for companies and may also be available for licensing and/or co-development.

Information on licensing and co-development research collaborations, and copies of the U.S. patent applications listed below may be obtained by contacting: Attn. Invention Development and Marketing Unit, Technology Transfer Center, National Cancer Institute, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Mail Stop 9702, Rockville, MD 20850-9702, Tel. 240-276-5515 or email ncitechtransfer@mail.nih.gov. A signed Confidential Disclosure Agreement may be required to receive copies of the patent applications.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Technology description follows.

Title of Invention: Shark Antibodies that Target Tumor and Viral Antigens.

Description of Technology: Shark V-NAR (Variable New Antigen Receptor) antibodies are an emerging class of therapeutic candidates. As single domain (heavy chain) antibodies with an extensive antigen-binding repertoire, shark V-NAR antibodies may provide advantages over traditional antibodies. Specifically, the smaller size of shark V-NAR antibodies may provide increased solubility, thermal stability, refolding capacity, and the ability to recognize epitopes that are sterically hindered from recognition by larger antibodies, but without loss of specificity in antigen-binding.

Researchers at the National Cancer Institute's Laboratory of Molecular Biology (NCI LMB) have developed an immunological platform that includes the development of a shark V-NAR antibody phage display library, isolation of specific antibodies that bind to several tumor and viral antigens from the library, and the development of the specific antibodies for treatment of cancer or viral infection. Specific antibody targets for binders include tumor-specific antigens (GPC3 [Clone F1], PD1 [Clone A1], HER2 [Clones A6/A7]), and viral antigens (MERS [Clones A3, A7, A8, B4, and B5] and SARS [Clone O1]).

Anti-glypican 3 (GPC3) V-NAR, Clone F1, is an antibody of immediate interest since it has already shown specific binding to GPC3-expressing tumor cells in vitro. Thus, anti-GPC3 V-NAR represents a viable candidate for development of an antibody-toxin/drug conjugate (ADC and immunotoxin), a bispecific antibody or a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) against GPC3-expressing tumor cells.

Potential Commercial Applications:

• Therapeutic Uses○ Use as unconjugated antibodies○ Use as targeting moieties for immunoconjugates such as CARs, ADCs, Immunoconjugates, bispecific antibodies, etc.• Diagnostic agent for detecting and monitoring target-expressing malignancies

Value Proposition:

• Potential to be first to market with high specificity and binding to targets resulting in less non-specific cell killing, therefore fewer potential side-effects for the patient• Small size of antibodies enhances stability, solubility, and target recognition

Contact Information: Requests for copies of the patent application or inquiries about licensing, research collaborations, and co-development opportunities should be sent to John D. Hewes, Ph.D., email: john.hewes@nih.gov.

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Opportunities for Collaborative Research at the NIH Clinical Center (U01).

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Topics in Non-HIV Microbial Diagnostic and Detection Research.

The National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), is seeking public comment regarding its proposal to reorganize its Office of Policy, Communications, and Strategic Alliances.

DATES:

Any interested person may file written comments by sending an email to NCATSReorgComments@nih.gov by July 22, 2016. The statement should include the individual's name, and when applicable, professional affiliation. NCATS will respond to comments by email no later than July 29, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

The following email address has been established for questions and/or comments on the reorganization: NCATSReorgComments@nih.gov.

Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), NCATS will launch public Web site information at https://ncats.nih.gov/about/center/org/reorg on July 8, 2016, to encourage further public discussion of the proposal to reorganize its Office of Policy, Communications and Strategic Alliances. NCATS also will provide information via its Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/ncats.nih.gov) and Twitter account (https://twitter.com/ncats_nih_gov). The proposal is aimed at better reflecting NCATS' alignment and priorities while ensuring the Center remains a leader in public education and community involvement related to translational science.

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Fellowship: Infectious Diseases and Microbiology.

The invention listed below is owned by an agency of the U.S. Government and is available for licensing in the U.S. in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404 to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally-funded research and development. Foreign patent applications are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage for companies and may also be available for licensing.

Information on licensing, and copies of the U.S. patent applications listed below may be obtained by contacting: Attn. Invention Development and Marketing Unit, Technology Transfer Center, National Cancer Institute, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Mail Stop 9702, Rockville, MD 20850-9702, Tel. 240-276-5515 or email ncitechtransfer@mail.nih.gov. A signed Confidential Disclosure Agreement may be required to receive copies of the patent applications.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Technology description follows.

Title of Invention: Improved Fixative for Paraffin-Embedded Tissue Samples.

Description of Technology

Tissues samples collected during medical procedures, such as biopsies, are used to diagnose a wide variety of diseases. Before diagnosis, patient samples are typically processed by fixation and paraffin embedding. This fixation/embedding process is used to preserve tissue morphology and histology for subsequent evaluation. Unfortunately, most fixative agents damage or destroy nucleic acids (RNA and DNA) and proteins, thereby potentially impairing diagnostic assessment of tissue.

Researchers in the National Cancer Institute's Laboratory of Pathology have developed an improved tissue fixative solution that is formaldehyde-free. This fixative, BE70, significantly improves DNA, RNA, and protein biomolecule integrity in histological samples compared to traditional fixatives. Additionally, BE70 is compatible with current protocols and does not alter tissue processing. In vitro an in vivo data are available and the fixative has been tested on paraffin-embedded samples.

Potential Commercial Applications

• Improves integrity of fixed tissue samples.

• Improves RNA/DNA quality in fixed tissue samples.

• Non-cross linking, improves protein quality.

Value Proposition

• There is substantial interest in new fixatives to replace neutral buffered formalin (a carcinogen) as primary fixative agent for surgical pathology.

• BE70 overcomes several limitations of other fixatives, including cost and disposal issues.

• Could be formulated as a concentrate, and marketed as an additive (to be added during dilution of ethanol).

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel; Delirium Research Networks.

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Name of Committee: National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel; R13 Conference Grant Review.

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Name of Committee: National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Special Emphasis Panel; Recording and Modulation in the Human CNS.

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel; Epigenomics of Aging.

In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR), abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval of a revision to the following collection of information: 1625-0104, Barges Carrying Bulk Hazardous Materials. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.

DATES:

Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before August 5, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2016-0106] to the Coast Guard using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Alternatively, you may submit comments to OIRA using one of the following means:

(3) Fax: 202-395-6566. To ensure your comments are received in a timely manner, mark the fax, attention Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.

A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from: Commandant (CG-612), Attn: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S. Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr Ave. SE., Stop 7710, Washington, DC 20593-7710.

This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection. The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. These comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred to in this Notice.

We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this request, [USCG-2016-0106], and must be received by August 5, 2016.

Submitting Comments

We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted.

We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each ICR. An OMB Notice of Action on each ICR will become available via a hyperlink in the OMB Control Number: 1625-0104.

Previous Request for Comments

This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (81 FR 15323, March 22, 2016) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no comments. Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collection.

Information Collection Request

Title: Barges Carrying Bulk Hazardous Materials.

OMB Control Number: 1625-0104.

Summary: This information is needed to ensure the safe shipment of bulk hazardous liquids in barges. The requirements are necessary to ensure that barges meet safety standards and to ensure that barge's crewmembers have the information necessary to operate barges safely.

Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 28,958 hours to 40,307 hours a year. The burden change is due to a change in the estimated annual number of new construction (n/c) tank barges. In the last ICR submission, the Coast Guard estimated approximately 160 n/c tank barges per year. In this ICR submission, the Coast Guard estimates about282 n/c tank barges per year.

In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR), abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval of a revision to the following collection of information: 1625-0065, Offshore Supply Vessels—Title 46 Code of Federal Regulation Subchapter L. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.

DATES:

Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before August 5, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2016-0024] to the Coast Guard using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Alternatively, you may submit comments to OIRA using one of the following means:

(3) Fax: 202-395-6566. To ensure your comments are received in a timely manner, mark the fax, attention Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.

A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from: Commandant (CG-612), Attn: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S. Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE., Stop 7710, Washington, DC 20593-7710.

This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection.

The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) Che practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. These comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred to in this Notice.

We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this request, [USCG-2016-0024], and must be received by August 5, 2016.

Submitting Comments

We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted.

We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each ICR. An OMB Notice of Action on each ICR will become available via a hyperlink in the OMB Control Number: 1625-0065.

Previous Request for Comments

This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (81 FR 14870, March 18, 2016) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). We received one comment from a commenter to the 60-day Notice. The comment was not related to the periodic renewal of this information collection. The comment was about the need to correct outdated organizational addresses and standards of certain materials incorporated by reference in title 46 CFR subchapter L, Offshore Supply Vessels. The Coast Guard will consider this comment in an ongoing rulemaking that will revise offshore supply vessel standards.

Need: The OSV posting/marking requirements are needed to provide instructions to those onboard of actions to be taken in the event of an emergency. The reporting/recordkeeping requirements verify compliance with regulations without Coast Guard presence to witness routine matters, including OSVs based overseas as an alternative to Coast Guard inspection.

Forms: None.

Respondents: Owners and operators of vessels.

Frequency: On occasion.

Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 2,068 hours to 2,353 hours a year due to an increase in the estimated annual number of respondents. The change is due to the methodology for calculating burden being revised to better distinguish between the burden elements. The last Information Collection Request (ICR) simply estimated 304 responses per respondent. This ICR presents 3 distinct burden elements—(1) plan review and records submission; (2) recordkeeping & posting/marking; and (3) alternative annual inspection submissions. This ICR also shows the difference in activity level between existing OSVs and newly constructed OSVs.

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of our comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) and finding of no significant impact (FONSI) for the environmental assessment (EA) for Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge). The CCP will guide management of the Refuge for 15 years, or until it is revised, and actions will be implemented as funding becomes available.

ADDRESSES:

You may view, download, or request printed or CD-ROM copies of the CCP and FONSI by the following methods:

In-Person Viewing or Pickup: Call (808) 828-1413 to make an appointment during regular business hours at the Kīlauea Point National Wildlife Refuge, 3500 Kīlauea Road, Kīlauea, HI 96754. For more information on locations for viewing documents, see “Public Availability of Documents” under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

With this notice, we finalize the CCP process for the Refuge. We started this process through a notice in the Federal Register (74 FR 49399; September 28, 2009). For more information about the history of the Refuge, see that notice. We also released the draft CCP/EA to the public and requested comments through a notice in the Federal Register (80 FR 7876; February 12, 2015).

We announce our decision and the availability of the FONSI and the final CCP in accordance with National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1506.6(b)) requirements. We completed an analysis of impacts on the human environment in the draft CCP/EA. The CCP will guide management of the Refuge for 15 years, or until it is revised, and actions will be implemented as funding becomes available.

We selected a slightly modified Alternative D for implementation. We made changes and clarifications to the final CCP, where appropriate, to address public comments we received on the draft CCP/EA. A summary of the public comments is included in the final CCP with our responses.

Background

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) (Refuge Administration Act), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, requires us to develop a CCP for each national wildlife refuge. The purpose for developing a CCP is to provide refuge managers with a 15-year plan for achieving refuge purposes and contributing toward the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management, conservation, legal mandates, and our policies. In addition to outlining broad management direction on conserving wildlife and their habitats, CCPs identify compatible wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities available to the public. We will review and update the CCP at least every 15 years in accordance with the Refuge Administration Act.

Selected Alternative

Under the selected alternative, we will expand long-term protections and population and habitat enhancements for migratory seabirds and the endangered nēnē (Hawaiian goose, Branta sandvicensis). We will restore native coastal plant communities. Priority research, inventories, monitoring, and other scientific assessments will increase.

The majority of public use activities offered at the Refuge will continue to revolve around wildlife observation and photography, environmental education, and interpretation located on Kīlauea Point proper (Point) or at the Kīlauea Road terminus (Overlook). We will offer guided interpretive hikes on Crater Hill, and our outreach, environmental education, and volunteer programs will be expanded.

To address transportation issues at the Point and Overlook, we will implement short-, medium-, and long-term strategies in a phased manner. The Kāhili Quarry area will continue to be open 24 hours a day to some wildlife-dependent uses (fishing, wildlife observation, and photography) and as public access to off-Refuge areas (Kīlauea River, Kīlauea Bay, and Kāhili Beach) for boating and other stream, beach, and ocean uses. Traditional cultural practices, such as native Hawaiian fishing at Kīlauea (East) Cove, will remain open.

The Refuge will maintain current infrastructure; however, a step-down Master Site Plan will be developed to evaluate and detail building use and remodeling/maintenance needs. We will develop a new maintenance baseyard (e.g., storage sheds, bays, pole barns, and nursery) off-Refuge.

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have received applications for enhancement of survival permits (EOS permits) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), pursuant to the Greater Sage-grouse Umbrella Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances for Wyoming Ranch Management (Umbrella CCAA). The permit applications, if approved, would authorize incidental take associated with implementation of specified individual Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances (individual CCAAs) developed in accordance with the Umbrella CCAA. We invite the public to comment on the EOS permit applications described below. The Act requires that we invite public comment before issuing these permits.

DATES:

To ensure consideration, please send your written comments by August 5, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

Submitting Comments: Send written comments by one of the following methods. Please specify the permit(s) you are commenting on by relevant number(s) (e.g., Permit No. TE-XXXXXX).

Reviewing Documents: You may review copies of the enhancement of survival permit applications during regular business hours at the Wyoming ESFO (see address above). You may also request hard copies by telephone at (307) 772-2374, ext. 231, or by letter to the Wyoming ESFO. Please specify the permit(s) you are interested in by relevant number(s) (e.g., Permit No. TE-XXXXXX).

A Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances is an agreement with the Service in which private and other non-Federal landowners voluntarily agree to undertake management activities and conservation efforts on their properties to enhance, restore, or maintain habitat to benefit species that are proposed for listing under the Act, that are candidates for listing, or that may become candidates. The Service and several State, Federal, and local partners developed the Umbrella CCAA (available at http://www.fws.gov/wyominges) to provide Wyoming ranchers with the opportunity to voluntarily conserve greater sage-grouse and its habitat while carrying out their ranching activities. The Umbrella CCAA was made available for public review and comment on February 7, 2013 (see 78 FR 9066), and was executed by the Service on November 8, 2013.

Pursuant to the Umbrella CCAA, ranchers in Wyoming may apply for an EOS permit under the Act by agreeing to implement certain conservation measures for the greater sage-grouse on their properties. These conservation measures are specified in individual CCAAs for their properties, which are developed in accordance with the Umbrella CCAA and are subject to the terms and conditions stated in that agreement. Landowners consult with the Service and other participating agencies to develop an individual CCAA for their property, and submit it to the Service for approval with their EOS permit application. If we approve the individual CCAA and EOS permit application, we will issue an EOS permit, under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), that authorizes incidental take of greater sage-grouse that results from activities covered by the individual CCAA, should the species become listed. Through the Umbrella CCAA and the individual CCAA and EOS permit, we also provide assurances to participating landowners that, if the greater sage-grouse is listed, and so long as they are properly implementing their individual CCAA, we will not require any conservation measures with respect to greater sage-grouse in addition to those provided in the individual CCAA or impose additional land, water, or financial commitments or restrictions on land, water, or resource use in connection with the species. The EOS permit would become effective on the effective date of listing of the greater sage-grouse as endangered or threatened, and would continue through the end of the individual CCAA's 20-year term. Regulatory requirements and issuance criteria for EOS permits through a CCAA are found in 50 CFR 17.22(d) and 17.32(d), as well as 50 CFR part 13.

Applications Available for Review and Comment

We invite local, State, and Federal agencies and the public to comment on the following EOS permit applications. The Umbrella CCAA, as well as the individual CCAAs submitted with the permit applications, are also available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) and Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). The following applicants request approval of EOS permits for the greater sage-grouse, pursuant to the Umbrella CCAA, for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival.

Permit Application Number TE88360B-0

Applicant: Sommers Ranch LLC, Sublette County, Wyoming.

Permit Application Number TE88361B-0

Applicant: S. Robert Leaver Family Limited Partnership, Sublette County, Wyoming.

All comments and materials we receive in response to these requests will become part of the public record, and will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice.

Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Authority

We provide this notice under section 10(c) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1539(c)).

Section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) requires the Secretary of the Interior to publish in the Federal Register notice of approved Tribal-State compacts that are for the purpose of engaging in Class III gaming activities on Indian lands. See Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq. All Tribal-State Class III compacts, including amendments, are subject to review and approval by the Secretary under 25 CFR 293.4.

In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Northeastern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council (RAC), will hold two meetings in Nevada in fiscal year 2016 and one at the beginning of fiscal year 2017. The meetings are open to the public. July 22, California Trail Interpretive Center, 1 Trail Center Way, Elko, Nevada 89801, Nevada; Aug. 11-12, BLM Battle Mountain District Office, 50 Bastian Road, Battle Mountain, NV 89820, Nevada; and Oct. 6-7, 702 N. Industrial Way, HC 33, Box 33500, Ely, NV 89301, Nevada. Meeting times will be published in local and regional media sources at least 14 days before each meeting. All meetings will include a public comment period.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Greg Deimel, Public Affairs Specialist, Elko District Office, 3900 East Idaho Street, NV 89801, telephone: (775) 753-0386, email: gdeimel@blm.gov. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The 15-member Council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in Nevada. Topics for discussion at each meeting will include, but are not limited to:

• July 22 (Elko)—Resource Advisory Council Standards and Guidelines, Greater Sage-Grouse, Range Management, and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act.

Managers' reports of district office activities will be given at each meeting. The Council may raise other topics at the meetings.

Final agendas will be posted on-line at the BLM Northern Great Basin RAC Web site at http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/res/resource_advisory.html and will be published in local and regional media sources at least 14 days before each meeting.

Individuals who need special assistance such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, or who wish to receive a copy of each agenda, may contact Greg Deimel no later than 10 days prior to each meeting.

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Joint Staff, the Department of Defense; Environmental Protection Agency; Department of Energy; U.S. Coast Guard, the Department of Homeland Security; Department of Transportation; and the Department of Agriculture.

ACTION:

Notice with request for comments.

SUMMARY:

The Mid-Atlantic Regional Planning Body (MidA RPB), which includes eight Federal agencies and departments, six states, two Federally-recognized Indian Tribes, and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, is requesting public comment on its draft Mid-Atlantic Regional Ocean Action Plan (draft Plan). The MidA RPB collaboratively prepared the draft Plan, pursuant to the National Ocean Policy, to build upon and improve existing Federal, state, and tribal decision-making and planning processes in the Mid-Atlantic Region. The Department of the Interior's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), as lead Federal agency for the MidA RPB, is publishing this notice on behalf of the MidA RPB. The MidA RPB will consider all public comments in revising the draft Plan, and will submit a final Plan to the National Ocean Council (NOC or Council) for its concurrence.

DATES:

Submit comments on or before September 6, 2016 (60 days after publication in the Federal Register on July 6, 2016).

Comments will be made available to the public on http://www.boem.gov/Written-Public-Comments-Submitted-to-the-MidA-RPB/. If you do not want your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, please do not include it in your comment or any accompanying documents.

Executive Order 13547, signed July 19, 2010, Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes (National Ocean Policy), established a national policy to protect, maintain, and restore the health and biodiversity of the ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems and resources; enhance the sustainability of the ocean and coastal economies; preserve our maritime heritage; support sustainable uses and access; provide for adaptive management to enhance our understanding of and capacity to respond to climate change and ocean acidification; increase our scientific understanding and awareness of changing environmental conditions, trends, and their causes; and perform duties in accordance with applicable international law, including respect for and preservation of navigational rights and freedoms, which are essential for the global economy, international peace, national security, and foreign policy interests. The National Ocean Policy encourages a comprehensive, adaptive, integrated, ecosystem-based, and transparent ocean planning process based on sound science for analyzing current and anticipated uses of ocean and coastal areas. The National Ocean Policy also provides for intergovernmental regional planning bodies' voluntary development of regional marine plans that build upon and improve existing Federal, state, and tribal decision-making and planning processes. These regional plans, developed by, for, and in the regions, will enable a more integrated, comprehensive, ecosystem-based, flexible, and proactive approach to planning and managing sustainable multiple uses across sectors, and will improve the conservation of the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes.

Mid-Atlantic Regional Planning Body

The MidA RPB includes six states (New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia); two Federally-recognized Indian Tribes (the Shinnecock Indian Nation and the Pamunkey Indian Tribe); eight Federal agencies and departments (U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of Transportation, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) and component sub-agencies (including the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, the National Oceanic Atmospheric and Administration, the Maritime Administration, the U.S. Coast Guard, the Joint Staff, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers); and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. The MidA RPB is not a regulatory body and has no independent legal authority to regulate or direct Federal, state or tribal entities, nor does the draft Plan, described below, augment or subtract from any entity's existing statutory or other authorities.

Development of the Draft Mid-Atlantic Ocean Action Plan

The MidA RPB met for the first time in September 2013. The MidA RPB directed the formal processes and developed the draft Plan over the course of three years. The MidA RPB process leading to the draft Plan included a total of five multi-day public meetings between September 2013 and March 2016. Between MidA RPB meetings, there was ongoing outreach to obtain public feedback, identify and discuss issues, review data, and procure scientific input. For example, members of the MidA RPB met with expert work groups, stakeholder groups, environmental groups, and marine industries, including commercial fishing and shipping groups. The MidA RPB will review all comments received during the public comment period, and revise the draft Plan at the close of the comment period. The MidA RPB will consider all public comments received in making its revisions, and will then submit a final Plan to the NOC for its concurrence.

The draft Plan is based on science and informed by stakeholder data and input. Throughout the planning process, the MidA RPB involved stakeholders in developing data products regarding ocean-based human activities (for example, shipping, fishing, recreation, and energy generation) and marine life and habitat (through review of the methods, analyses, and draft products for spatial data characterizing species and their habitat). The MidA RPB also encouraged stakeholders to review spatial data on the Mid-Atlantic Ocean Data Portal (the Portal). In collaboration with the Mid-Atlantic Ocean Data Portal Working Group, the MidA RPB developed the Portal as an online source that incorporates maps and data on marine life distribution and human activities. The Portal is available online at: http://midatlanticocean.org/data-portal/.

II. The Draft Mid-Atlantic Ocean Action Plan

The draft Plan, developed using the best available science and knowledge, provides an integrated, comprehensive, flexible, and proactive approach to planning and managing uses of the Mid-Atlantic marine environment. The draft Plan is a forward-looking document intended to strengthen interagency coordination, planning, and policy implementation, and to enhance public participation. The draft Plan has two main goals: (1) Healthy ocean ecosystems; and (2) sustainable ocean uses. The draft Plan promotes the use of data from the Portal to inform agency actions, enhance stakeholder input and involvement, locate potential areas of conflict, and identify additional information and science needs. The draft Plan also describes best practices for Federal inter-agency coordination, as well as coordination among Federal agencies, tribes, states, and other stakeholders. The draft Plan enhances the tools and information available for Federal agency actions and planning, and clarifies alternatives and opportunities within the context of tribal and state agency actions, thereby increasing coordination opportunities across these government entities.

As previously stated, the draft Plan does not augment or subtract from any entity's existing statutory or other authorities. The draft Plan provides a strategy to monitor and analyze trends in ecosystem health, and undertake efforts to communicate progress toward achieving the two main goals of the draft Plan. The draft Plan is a foundation, not a finished structure, and it will continue to evolve as new trends, information, and needs emerge.

III. Implementation of the Mid-Atlantic Ocean Action Plan

Executive Order 13547, which adopts the Final Recommendations of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force (Final Recommendations), establishes a process for the NOC to review and certify each regional marine plan to ensure it is consistent with the National Ocean Policy and includes the essential elements described in the Final Recommendations.

The NOC issued guidance to the NOC member agencies in the form of the Marine Planning Handbook (Handbook). The Handbook calls for the NOC member agencies to concur that regional marine plans submitted by the regional planning bodies are consistent with the substantive and procedural standards set forth in the Final Recommendations. The NOC concurrence operates as the certification described in Executive Order 13547. By concurring that the Mid-Atlantic Ocean Action Plan was developed in accordance with the substantive and procedural standards in the Final Recommendations, the NOC certifies that Federal members of the MidA RPB will use the Plan to guide and inform their actions consistent with their existing statutory and regulatory authorities. Consistent with Executive Order 13547, each NOC member will, as described in the Final Recommendations, and to the fullest extent consistent with applicable law, comply with those regional plans certified by the NOC.

The Federal members of the MidA RPB administer a wide range of statutes and programs affecting the marine environment in the Mid-Atlantic. These Federal departments and agencies carry out actions under Federal laws involving a wide range of regulatory responsibilities and non-regulatory missions and management activities throughout the Nation's waterways and the ocean. These activities include managing and developing marine transportation systems, national security and homeland defense activities, regulating ocean discharges, siting energy facilities, permitting sand removal and beach re-nourishment, managing national parks and national wildlife refuges, regulating commercial and recreational fishing, and managing activities affecting threatened and endangered species and migratory birds.

The specific manner and mechanism a Federal agency uses to implement the final Mid-Atlantic Ocean Action Plan will depend on that agency's mission, authorities, and activities in the marine environment. The Federal members of the MidA RPB will publicly describe the administrative mechanisms they will use to implement the Plan when the MidA RPB submits the Plan to the NOC for review and concurrence.

If the NOC concurs (i.e., certifies) that the Plan is consistent with Executive Order 13547, the Final Recommendations, and the Handbook, each Federal MidA RPB member will incorporate the final Plan into their planning processes and internal agency documents, and use the Plan to guide and inform their decisions and actions, consistent with applicable law. Federal MidA RPB members with regulatory responsibilities will incorporate the final Plan into their pre-planning, planning, and permitting to guide and inform Federal agency internal and external permitting decisions, environmental compliance, resource management plans, and other actions taken pursuant to existing statutory and regulatory authorities. These agencies will ensure their scientists, managers, decision-makers, and analysts use the Mid-Atlantic Regional Ocean Action Plan to guide and inform their actions to the fullest extent possible under existing statutory and regulatory authorities. As noted throughout the Final Recommendations, the Mid-Atlantic Ocean Action Plan will not create new authorities, regulations, or Federal agency missions. All Federal activities will continue to be managed under existing statutory and regulatory authorities.

IV. Conclusion

Through Executive Order 13547, Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes, President Obama established a National Ocean Policy to ensure the protection, maintenance, and restoration of the health of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems and resources; enhance the sustainability of ocean and coastal economies; preserve our maritime heritage; support sustainable uses and access; provide for adaptive management of ocean and coastal resources to enhance our understanding of and capacity to respond to climate change and ocean acidification; and coordinate ocean policy with our national security and foreign policy interests.

The MidA RPB anticipates the Mid-Atlantic Regional Ocean Action Plan will increase the sharing of information and data across resource managers, stakeholders, and the public; enhance decision-making through collaboration and coordination among Federal, state, and tribal governments; and provide for an improved information and data system that characterizes human activities and natural resources in Mid-Atlantic waters from the coast to 200 nautical miles offshore. This informational overlay, along with the best practices for improved coordination, will improve the context for decisions affecting the resources and coastal and ocean waters of the Mid-Atlantic region.

Authority:

Executive Order 13547, “Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts and the Great Lakes” (July 19, 2010).

The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG) makes recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior concerning Glen Canyon Dam operations and other management actions to protect resources downstream of Glen Canyon Dam, consistent with the Grand Canyon Protection Act. The AMWG meets two to three times a year.

DATES:

The meeting will be held on Wednesday, August 24, 2016, from approximately 9:30 a.m. to approximately 5:30 p.m.; and Thursday, August 25, 2016, from approximately 8:30 a.m. to approximately 3 p.m.

ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at the Little America Hotel, 2515 E. Butler Avenue, Flagstaff, Arizona 86004.

The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) was implemented as a result of the Record of Decision on the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Final Environmental Impact Statement to comply with consultation requirements of the Grand Canyon Protection Act (Pub. L. 102-575) of 1992. The GCDAMP includes a Federal advisory committee, the AMWG, a technical work group (TWG), a Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, and independent review panels. The TWG is a subcommittee of the AMWG and provides technical advice and recommendations to the AMWG.

Agenda: The primary purpose of the meeting will be to approve the Fiscal Year 2017 Budget and Work Plan, and to approve the Water Year 2017 Hydrograph operation for Glen Canyon Dam. The AMWG will receive updates on: (1) The Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement, (2) current basin hydrology, (3) reports from the Glen Canyon Dam Tribal and Federal Liaisons, (4) presentation on power generation in the West, and (5) science results from Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center staff. The AMWG will also address other administrative and resource issues pertaining to the GCDAMP.

To view a copy of the agenda and documents related to the above meeting, please visit Reclamation's Web site at http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/amwg/mtgs/16aug24. Time will be allowed at the meeting for any individual or organization wishing to make formal oral comments. To allow for full consideration of information by the AMWG members, written notice must be provided to Katrina Grantz, Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Regional Office, 125 South State Street, Room 8100, Salt Lake City, Utah 84138; telephone (801) 524-3635; facsimile (801) 524-3807; email at kgrantz@usbr.gov, at least five (5) days prior to the meeting. Any written comments received will be provided to the AMWG members.

Public Disclosure of Comments

Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) is announcing its intention to request approval for the collections of information for State Processes for Designating Areas Unsuitable for Surface Coal Mining Operations. The information collection request describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden and cost.

DATES:

Comments on the proposed information collection must be received by September 6, 2016, to be assured of consideration.

ADDRESSES:

Comments may be mailed to John A. Trelease, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 1951 Constitution Ave, NW., Room 203—SIB, Washington, DC 20240. Comments may also be submitted electronically to jtrelease@osmre.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

To receive a copy of the information collection request contact John Trelease, at (202) 208-2783 or by email at jtrelease@osmre.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR part 1320, which implementing provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), require that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities [see 5 CFR 1320.8 (d)]. This notice identifies an information collection that OSMRE will be submitting to OMB for extension. This collection is contained in 30 CFR part 764.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for this collection of information is 1029-0030 and is displayed at 30 CFR 764.10.

OSMRE has revised burden estimates, where appropriate, to reflect current reporting levels or adjustments based on reestimates of burden or respondents. OSMRE will request a 3-year term of approval for these information collection activities.

Comments are invited on: (1) The need for the collection of information for the performance of the functions of the agency; (2) the accuracy of the agency's burden estimates; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collections; and (4) ways to minimize the information collection burden on respondents, such as use of automated means of collection of the information. A summary of the public comments will accompany OSMRE's submission of the information collection request to OMB.

Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

This notice provides the public with 60 days in which to comment on the following information collection activity:

Summary: This part implements the requirement of section 522 of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA), Public Law 95-87, which provides authority for citizens to petition States to designate lands unsuitable for surface coal mining operations, or to terminate such designation. The regulatory authority uses the information to identify, locate, compare and evaluate the area requested to be designated as unsuitable, or terminate the designation, for surface coal mining operations.

Bureau Form Number: None.

Frequency of Collection: Once.

Description of Respondents: Individuals, groups or businesses that petition the States, and the State regulatory authorities that must process the petitions.

Total Annual Respondents: 4.

Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,000 hours for individuals or groups, and 4,000 for State regulatory authorities.

In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) is announcing its intention to request renewed approval for the collection of information for OSMRE's Special Permanent Program Performance Standards—Operations in Alluvial Valley Floors.

DATES:

Comments on the proposed information collection must be received by September 6, 2016, to be assured of consideration.

ADDRESSES:

Comments may be mailed to John A. Trelease, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 1951 Constitution Ave NW., Room 203—SIB, Washington, DC 20240. Comments may also be submitted electronically to jtrelease@osmre.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

To receive a copy of the information collection request contact John Trelease, at (202) 208-2783 or by email at jtrelease@osmre.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR part 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), require that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities [see 5 CFR 1320.8 (d)]. This notice identifies an information collection that OSMRE will be submitting to OMB for extension. This collection is contained in 30 CFR part 822.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for this collection of information is 1029-0049 and is displayed at 30 CFR 822.10.

OSMRE has revised burden estimates, where appropriate, to reflect current reporting levels or adjustments based on reestimates of burden or respondents. OSMRE will request a 3-year term of approval for this information collection activity.

Comments are invited on: (1) The need for the collection of information for the performance of the functions of the agency; (2) the accuracy of the agency's burden estimates; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collections; and (4) ways to minimize the information collection burden on respondents, such as use of automated means of collection of the information. A summary of the public comments will accompany OSMRE's submissions of the information collection request to OMB.

Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

This notice provides the public with 60 days in which to comment on the following information collection activity:

Summary: Sections 510(b)(5) and 515(b)(10)(F) of the Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Act of 1977 (the Act) protect alluvial valley floors from the adverse effects of surface coal mining operations west of the 100th meridian. Part 822 requires the permittee to install, maintain, and operate a monitoring system in order to provide specific protection for alluvial valley floors. This information is necessary to determine whether the unique hydrologic conditions of alluvial valley floors are protected according to the Act.

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and NAC intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

On May 2, 2000, NAC filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(h) of the Act on June 30, 2000 (65 FR 40693).

The last notification was filed with the Department on March 15, 2016. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(h) of the Act on April 14, 2016 (81 FR 22121).

Notice is hereby given that, on June 6, 2016, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (“the Act”), Petroleum Environmental Research Forum Project No. 2013-07, Stream Speciation Update (“PERF Project No. 2013-07”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Phillips 66 Company, Houston, TX, has been added as a party to this venture.

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and PERF Project No. 2013-07 intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

On February 23, 2015, PERF Project No. 2013-07 filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on April 2, 2015 (80 FR 17786).

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and NAMC intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

On October 15, 2009, RTC filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on November 30, 2009 (74 FR 62599).

The last notification was filed with the Department on March 25, 2014. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on April 30, 2014 (79 FR 24450).

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and NSC intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

On May 24, 2014, NSC filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on November 4, 2014 (72 FR 65424).

The last notification was filed with the Department on March 15, 2016. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on April 14, 2016 (81 FR 22120).

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and NCMS intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

On February 20, 1987, NCMS filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on March 17, 1987 (52 FR 8375).

The last notification was filed with the Department on March 25, 2014. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on April 30, 2014 (79 FR 24451).

Notice is hereby given that, on May 31, 2016, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (“the Act”), Pistoia Alliance, Inc. has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, IPQ Analytics LLC, Kennett Square, PA; Novaseek Research, Cambridge, MA; and Accenture, Berwyn, PA, have been added as parties to this venture.

Also, Oracle America Inc., Redwood Shores, CA, has withdrawn as a party to this venture.

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Pistoia Alliance, Inc. intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

On May 28, 2009, Pistoia Alliance, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on July 15, 2009 (74 FR 34364).

The last notification was filed with the Department on March 8, 2016. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on April 14, 2016 (81 FR 22119).

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and IMS Global intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

On April 7, 2000, IMS Global filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on September 13, 2000 (65 FR 55283).

The last notification was filed with the Department on March 18, 2016. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on April 18, 2016 (81 FR 22633).

Notice is hereby given that, on May 31, 2016, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (“the Act”), the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (“ASME”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing additions or changes to its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, since January 26, 2016, ASME has initiated two new standards activities within the general nature and scope of ASME's standards development activities, as specified in its original notification, and has discontinued three standards activities. More detail regarding these changes can be found at www.asme.org.

On September 15, 2004, ASME filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on October 13, 2004 (69 FR 60895).

The last notification with the Attorney General was filed on January 28, 2016. A notice was filed in the Federal Register on February 26, 2016 (81 FR 9883).

On April 14, 2015, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to Show Cause to Prianglam Brooks, N.P. (Respondent), of Houston, Texas. GX 1, at 1. The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration MB1907611, which authorizes her to dispense controlled substances in schedules III through V as a mid-level practitioner, as well as the denial of any pending applications to renew or modify her registration and any applications for any other DEA registration, because she does “not have authority to handle controlled substances in the State of Texas, the [S]tate in which” she is registered with DEA. Id. (citing 21 U.S.C. 802(21), 823(f) and 824(a)(3)).

More specifically, the Show Cause Order alleged that effective February 17, 2015, the Texas Board of Nursing (TBN) issued a summary suspension of Respondent's “nurse practitioner license” and her “Advanced Practice Registered Nurse License with Prescription Authorization,” resulting in her loss of authority under Texas law “to handle controlled substances in the State of Texas.” Id. The Order thus notified Respondent that her DEA registration was subject to revocation based upon her “lack of authority to handle controlled substances in the State of Texas.” Id. (citing 21 U.S.C. 802(21), 823(f) and 824(a)(3)).

The Show Cause Order also notified Respondent of her right to request a hearing on the allegations or to submit a written statement while waving her right to a hearing, the procedure for electing either option, and the consequence for failing to elect either option. Id. at 2 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43). On April 29, 2015, a DEA Diversion Investigator personally served the Show Cause Order on Respondent. GX 4.

On May 18, 2015, the Office of Administrative Law Judges received a letter from an attorney representing Respondent. GX 5. Therein, Respondent waived her right to a hearing and provided a written statement of her position on the matters of fact and law asserted by the Government. GX 5, at 2-3.

On February 16, 2016, the Government submitted a Request for Final Agency Action along with the Investigative Record and Respondent's Statement of Position. Having considered the record in its entirety, I make the following findings of fact.

Findings

Respondent is the holder of DEA Certificate of Registration MB1907611, pursuant to which she is authorized to dispense controlled substances in schedules III through V, as a mid-level practitioner, at the registered location of Prillenium Healthcare, 6260 WestPark Drive, Suite 260, Houston, Texas. GX 2. Her registration was last renewed in June 2014 and expires on July 31, 2017. Id.

Respondent is also the holder of Advanced Practice Registered Nurse License No. AP119040 with Prescription Authorization No. 10237 and Permanent Registered Nurse License No. 784525 issued by the Texas Board of Nursing. GX 3. However, on February 17, 2015, the Board ordered the temporary suspension of Respondent's licenses, finding that her continued practice as a nurse “constitutes a continuing and imminent threat to the public welfare.” GX 3, at 1.

As support for its imminent threat finding, the Board found that Respondent, while employed as a family nurse practitioner and owner of Prillenium Healthcare, prescribed 8,614 dangerous cocktail drugs without therapeutic benefit and failed to individually assess each patient and develop an individualized treatment plan. Id. at 1-2 (citations omitted). The Board also found that “Respondent's non-therapeutic prescribing practices constitute grounds for disciplinary action.” Id. at 2 (citations omitted).

The Board also found that “[o]n or about October 7, 2014 through December 12, 2014 . . . Respondent issued 410 prescriptions for hydrocodone, a Schedule II controlled substance, to patients not in a hospital setting or receiving hospice care.” Id. Finding that Respondent “does not have prescriptive authority to issue prescription for schedule II controlled substances,” the Board also found that “Respondent's prescribing practice . . . places patients at risk and endangers public safety.” Id. The Board then alleged that Respondent's prescribing of schedule II controlled substances constitutes grounds for disciplinary action. Id. (citations omitted).

The Board further found that Respondent owned and operated a pain clinic in violation of a state regulation, and that she issued prescriptions from a location not registered with the Texas Medical Board. Id. (citations omitted). The Board alleged that this conduct also constitutes grounds for disciplinary action. Id.

The Board's Order mandated that both a probable cause hearing and a final hearing on the matter be conducted within 60 days of the entry of its order. Id. at 3. According to Respondent's statement, a hearing was held on April 7, 2015, at which a state administrative law judge “extended the temporary suspension finding probable cause of a continuing and imminent threat to the public safety.” GX 5, at 2. According to an online query of the Board's Web site, all of Respondent's licenses remained suspended as of the date of this Order. See http://www.Board.texas.gov/forms/apnrslt.asp.

In her Statement, Respondent contends that the Show Cause Order mischaracterizes the Board's temporary suspension as a “ `summary suspension.' ” GX 5, at 2. Respondent argues that the Board's February 17, 2015 temporary suspension was imposed “prior to notice and hearing.” Id. While Respondent acknowledges that the Board provided her with “a probable cause hearing,” after which it found that she poses “a continuing and imminent threat to the public safety” and thus continued the suspension,” she argues that “this is not a final order” and that a final hearing “has yet to be scheduled.” Id. (citation omitted).

Respondent admits that she is not currently authorized to prescribe any medications in Texas. Id. at 3. She contends, however, that because the temporary suspension “is not a final order” of the Board, DEA's authority under 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) must be considered in light of the its authority under subsection 824(d), the provision which authorizes the Attorney General to suspend a registration based upon a finding of imminent danger to public health or safety. Id. Respondent thus argues that because a suspension under section 824(d) “runs until the conclusion of such proceeding, including judicial review, . . . the principle of comity . . . suggest[s] that while a suspension of [her] registration may be appropriate [contingent on the outcome of the Board proceeding], a revocation is not appropriate.” Id.

Discussion

Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized to suspend or revoke a registration issued under section 823 of this title, “upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had [her] State license . . . suspended . . . by competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances.” Also, DEA has long held that the possession of authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the State in which a practitioner engages in professional practice is a fundamental condition for obtaining and maintaining a practitioner's registration. See, e.g., Frederick Marsh Blanton, 43 FR 27616, 27617 (1978) (“State authorization to dispense or otherwise handle controlled substances is a prerequisite to the issuance and maintenance of a Federal controlled substances registration.”); James L. Hooper, 76 FR 71371 (2011), pet. for rev.denied, 481 Fed. Appx. 826 (4th Cir. 2012).

This rule derives from the text of two provisions of the Controlled Substances. First, Congress defined “the term `practitioner' [to] mean[ ] a . . . physician . . . or other person licensed, registered or otherwise permitted, by . . . the jurisdiction in which [s]he practices . . . to distribute, dispense, [or] administer . . . a controlled substance in the course of professional practice.” 21 U.S.C. 802(21). Second, in setting the requirements for obtaining a practitioner's registration, Congress directed that “[t]he Attorney General shall register practitioners . . . if the applicant is authorized to dispense . . . controlled substances under the laws of the State in which [s]he practices.” 21 U.S.C. 823(f). Because Congress has clearly mandated that a practitioner possess state authority in order to be deemed a practitioner under the Act, DEA has long held that revocation of a practitioner's registration is the appropriate sanction whenever she is no longer authorized to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the State in which she practices medicine. See, e.g., Calvin Ramsey, 76 FR 20034, 20036 (2011); Sheran Arden Yeates, M.D., 71 FR 39130, 39131 (2006); Dominick A. Ricci, 58 FR 51104, 51105 (1993); Bobby Watts, 53 FR 11919, 11920 (1988).

This is so even where, as here, the state board has imposed a suspension of a practitioner's dispensing authority prior to providing a hearing and the practitioner has yet to be afforded the opportunity to challenge the basis of the state board's action. See, Ramsey 76 FR at 20036 (citations omitted). As the Agency previously explained: “Under the CSA, it does not matter whether the suspension is for a fixed term or for a duration which has yet to be determined because it is continuing pending the outcome of a state proceeding. Rather, what matters—as DEA has repeatedly held—is whether Respondent is without authority under [state] law to dispense a controlled substance.” Bourne Pharmacy, Inc., 72 FR 18273, 18274 (2007) (citation omitted). Cf. James L. Hooper, 76 FR 71371 (2011) (collecting cases); Blanton, 43 FR 27616 (1978) (revoking registration of physician whose medical license had been suspended for one year, but thereafter, would have his license restored subject to probationary conditions; “[a]s a result of the suspension of his medical license, the [r]espondent is no longer authorized to dispense or otherwise handle controlled substances under the laws of Florida. Accordingly . . . the [r]espondent's DEA registration must be revoked”). See also Rezik A. Saqer, 81 FR 22122, 22126 (2016).

Because the CSA clearly makes the possession of state authority a condition for maintaining a practitioner's registration, it is of no consequence that the Texas Board's temporary suspension order is not a final order of the Board. As for her contention that the principle of comity suggests that I should impose a suspension rather than a revocation, revoking her registration in no manner interferes with the Texas Board's authority to adjudicate the allegations it has raised against her.1 Respondent remains free to challenge the allegations raised by the State before the Board, and in the event she prevails, she can immediately apply for a new DEA registration.

1 Respondent's invocation of 21 U.S.C. 824(d) provides no support for her contention that comity suggests that I suspend rather than revoke her registration. That provision governs the exercise of the Agency's authority to immediately suspend a DEA registration, “simultaneously with the institution of proceedings under” section 824(a), based upon a finding that a registrant poses “an imminent danger to public health or safety.” The provision says nothing about the Agency's authority where a registrant's state authority has been suspended prior to hearing. Section 824(a) does, however, and while it provides the Attorney General with discretionary authority to suspend or revoke upon making one or more of the five enumerated findings, for the reasons explained above, the specific provisions that apply to practitioners establish that a registrant who loses her state authority no longer meets the definition of a practitioner and cannot retain her registration even in a suspended status.

Accordingly, because it is undisputed that Respondent's Texas Advanced Practice Nursing License and Prescription Authority remains suspended, I find that she no longer has authority under the laws of Texas, the State in which she is registered, to dispense controlled substances. Therefore, she is not entitled to maintain her DEA registration. Accordingly, I will order that her registration be revoked and that any pending applications be denied.

Order

Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b), I order that DEA Certificate of Registration MB1907611, issued to Prianglam Brooks, N.P., be, and it hereby is, revoked. I further order that any application of Prianglam Brooks, N.P., to renew or modify this registration, be, and it hereby is, denied. This Order is effective immediately.2

2 For the same reasons which led the Nursing Board to conclude that the continued practice of nursing by Respondent constitutes “a continuing and imminent threat to public welfare” and to order the summary suspension of Respondent's licenses, I conclude that the public interest necessitates that this Order be effective immediately. 21 CFR 1316.67.

The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, pursuant to its regulations (45 CFR part 503.25) and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice in regard to the scheduling of open meetings as follows:

Wednesday, July 13, 2016: 10:00 a.m.—Issuance of Proposed Decisions in claims against Iraq.

On June 28, 2016, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Partial Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in the lawsuit entitled In re: Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, Case No: MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC), partially resolving Clean Air Act and various California claims (including under the California Health and Safety Code) against Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., and others, concerning certain noncompliant 2.0 liter diesel vehicles. In addition, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) filed a related proposed Partial Stipulated Order for Permanent Injunction and Monetary Judg